run_sprint_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It details the entire workflow: syncing labels, computing risk flags, updating due dates, calculating velocity if certain conditions are met, writing a receipt, and supporting a dry_run mode. This is comprehensive, though it could mention destructiveness or permissions.

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 two short sentences: the first defines the tool's core purpose, and the second enumerates specific actions. Every phrase contributes essential information, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description covers the actions, it lacks details about return values (no output schema) and error conditions. Prerequisites like project setup are not mentioned, but the sibling tools list includes setup_project, hinting at dependencies. The description is adequate for a daily audit tool but leaves some gaps.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of dry_run ('compute but do not write') and contextualizing fix_version as the sprint identifier. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 runs a daily PM audit for a sprint, listing specific actions like syncing labels, computing risk flags, updating due dates, calculating velocity, and writing an audit receipt. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools such as sync_sprint_tasks, which likely focus on task-level operations.

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 implies a daily usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sync_sprint_tasks or search_issues. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, though the 'daily PM audit' framing offers some guidance.

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