plan_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only or mutation operation, what permissions are needed, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely creates or modifies sprints, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a likely mutation operation (planning/creating sprints), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'selected issues' which hints at 'issueIds', but doesn't explain the 'sprint' object's fields (title, dates, goals) or their formats. With 2 parameters and nested objects, this leaves critical semantics undocumented.

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 'Plan a new sprint with selected issues' clearly states the action (plan) and resource (sprint), but it's vague about what 'plan' entails compared to sibling tools like 'create_sprint'. It doesn't specify whether this creates the sprint or just prepares it, leaving ambiguity in differentiation.

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 new sprints with issues, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, offering minimal direction.

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