List sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them: project-scoped listings are fetched in full (has_more is false) while instance-wide listings paginate, and the API has no sprint write endpoint (mutation must go through update_work_package). It also flags the finish_date→finishDate wire naming pitfall.

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 purpose and the ID-resolution use case, then returns, then Pitfalls and Cross-references. Well organized with zero filler, though the four labeled sections make it longer than the minimum an agent needs.

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?

Covers when to use it, what it returns (items shape plus pagination/notes), pagination behavior, the no-write-endpoint constraint, and sibling routing. Even though an output schema exists, the summary is coherent and nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting project_id switches from a full project-scoped listing to a paginated instance-wide one, and it clarifies that `sprint` is consumed by other tools rather than being a parameter here. It stops short of repeating page/page_size semantics.

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 — 'List sprints (Scrum timeboxes) you can plan work packages into' — and immediately distinguishes the concept from versions and from single-sprint retrieval. An agent can tell this apart from list_versions and get_sprint 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 names the downstream consumers (create_work_package/update_work_package via their `sprint` parameter) and the review use case (a project's sprint plan with in_planning/active/completed states). Cross-references get_sprint, list_versions, and list_work_packages with sprint_ids, each with the condition that selects it.

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