list_sprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state read-only nature, performance characteristics, or any edge-case behaviors (e.g., empty sprint list, error on invalid pno). The agent must infer safety from the verb '查詢' (query), which is implicit.

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, direct sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It could be slightly longer to add usage guidelines or transparency details, but it is concise and 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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about the return format (e.g., sprint IDs, dates) and does not compensate for the absent output schema. The agent is left to guess what fields are in the sprint list, which is insufficient for complex tool selection.

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 100% with a single parameter (pno) labeled '專案編號' (project number). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high and the parameter is straightforward, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a project's sprint list ('查詢專案的迭代清單'), using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and list_requirements by specifying the entity ('sprints'), but could be more explicit about the resource type to improve 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like create_project and list_todos, the agent needs context on the tool's role in project management workflows, but none is provided beyond the basic purpose.

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