jira_list_sprints

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond it: no mention of pagination, whether all sprints or only non-empty ones are returned, or default filtering behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains unaddressed is scope and pagination behavior for a listing tool, leaving the definition minimally adequate for its low complexity.

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%, so both parameters (boardId and the state enum) are fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the state filter or board id format, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: list sprints, scoped to a board. An agent can tell it retrieves sprint listings rather than issues or boards. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like jira_get_sprint or jira_list_boards, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_get_sprint (single sprint), jira_get_sprint_issues (issues within a sprint), or jira_list_boards. The boardId requirement is implied but no prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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