Get sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds a real behavioral caveat: sprint ids and version ids are distinct id spaces, so a version id will not resolve. It also discloses which fields are added relative to the list shape. It stops short of pagination/error behavior, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then short labelled sections (Pitfalls, Cross-references) that make the routing and caveat easy to scan. No filler; every sentence either scopes the tool or prevents an error.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description correctly limits itself to scope, the delta over list_sprints, the id-space pitfall, and cross-references. Nothing an agent needs to call this one-param read tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single sprint_id param is already documented as 'Numeric sprint id from list_sprints', so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by warning that ids from list_versions belong to a different id space and will not resolve here, which directly protects against the most likely misuse of this parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one sprint in full') and enumerates the fields returned (dates, workspace, lifecycle status), plus the delta versus the list row ('adds created_at/updated_at'). An agent can distinguish it from list_sprints and get_work_package without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('once list_sprints has given you an id and the row is not enough') and names the prerequisite tool for obtaining the id. Cross-references route to list_work_packages with sprint_ids for follow-up work, so the agent knows both the entry condition and the next step.

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