sprint_retro

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

Discloses auto-detection of active sprint, which is behavioral context. No annotations exist, so description carries burden, but does not explain error handling or permissions. Adequate for a simple read-only report tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by trigger phrases and auto-detection. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, the description hints at report content (merge time, completion rates, Jira metrics) but does not specify return format or error cases. Reasonably complete for a straightforward report tool.

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 single parameter 'sprintName' is described as optional with auto-detection, which adds value beyond the schema's limited description. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage and minimal additional semantics.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates a sprint retrospective report with specific metrics (merge time, completion rates, Jira metrics). Distinguishes from siblings like sprint_review by focusing on retrospective analysis.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('sprint retro', 'retrospective', etc.) and notes auto-detection, giving clear guidance on when to use. Lacks exclusion criteria but is otherwise helpful.

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