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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing sprint data not mentioned in the update, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. It lacks critical context for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail 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 complexity (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies development sprints, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name ('sprint' suggests sprintId). It doesn't explain the purpose of fields like title, description, dates, or status, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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 'Update a development sprint' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('development sprint'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_milestone' beyond the resource type, and it lacks specificity about what aspects of a sprint can be updated.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sprint), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_sprint' or 'plan_sprint'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and input schema.

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