list_sprints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all sprints' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with 1 required parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return format, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 1 required parameter ('status') with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description 'List all sprints' doesn't mention any parameters or explain what 'status' means (e.g., possible values like 'active', 'completed'), failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'List all sprints' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('sprints'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'all' (e.g., active, completed, all statuses) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_sprint' or 'get_sprint_metrics', leaving it vague about scope and distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_current_sprint' for current sprint data or 'get_sprint_metrics' for performance insights, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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