mcp-github-project-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Plan a new sprint' which implies a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The mention of 'selected issues' hints at issue association, but lacks detail on how this differs from other issue-sprint tools.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and is perfectly front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (one complex nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the sprint creation process, issue association mechanics, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The context signals indicate significant complexity that the description doesn't address.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'selected issues' which maps to the 'issueIds' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'sprint' object or its nested properties (title, dates, goals). No format details, constraints, or examples are provided for any parameters.

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 action ('Plan') and resource ('a new sprint with selected issues'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_sprint' by implying issue selection, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sprint-related tools like 'update_sprint' or 'get_sprint_metrics'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_sprint' or 'add_issues_to_sprint'. The description implies usage for planning new sprints with issues, but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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