mcp-github-project-manager

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 but provides almost none. 'List all sprints' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, from a pure brevity perspective, it's perfectly 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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema description coverage, the description 'List all sprints' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the required parameter, doesn't describe the output format, doesn't provide behavioral context, and creates confusion about what 'all' means given the required status parameter. For a tool in this context, the description fails to provide necessary information.

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 shows one required parameter 'status' with 0% description coverage. The tool description 'List all sprints' doesn't mention any parameters at all, creating a contradiction - if it lists 'all' sprints, why is a 'status' parameter required? The description fails to explain what the status parameter does, what values it accepts, or how filtering by status relates to 'all' sprints.

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's vague about scope - 'all' could mean all sprints in the system, all sprints for a project, or all sprints with a specific status. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_current_sprint' or 'get_sprint_metrics' which also retrieve sprint information.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that retrieve sprint information (get_current_sprint, get_sprint_metrics), but the description doesn't explain when list_sprints is appropriate versus those other options. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases is provided.

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