list_project_sprints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pagination cap and offset behavior, which is key behavioral information for a list operation. However, it does not mention other potential traits like error handling or id/identifier semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: first states purpose, second key usage detail. No redundant words, front-loaded, efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and essential pagination mechanics. It is mostly complete, though it could mention default behavior when limit is omitted or the format of next_offset.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'limit' (capped, default 50) and 'offset' (use next_offset). For 'project', it says 'by id or identifier' but does not clarify the format. This adds some but not full clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List Backlogs sprints for a project by id or identifier.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover news, phases, statuses, work packages, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains pagination mechanics (cap at 50, use next_offset) which guides usage. It does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, but the context signals show no overlapping functionality with siblings, so the implied usage is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.