pm_workflow_sprint_planning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a workflow plan (not executing steps), includes steps, effort level, and execution instructions ('The AI client orchestrates execution by calling each step's tool in sequence'). No contradictions.

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 highly structured: title, effort level, numbered steps, usage instruction, args, returns. Each sentence serves a purpose without fluff. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's complexity (workflow orchestrator with multiple steps) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description fully covers: what it does, what it returns (Markdown plan), how it works (orchestration), and parameter details. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the two parameters with nearly identical descriptions from the schema, adding minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'from a backlog or PRD'). Does not provide format or syntax details beyond 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 'Sprint Planning workflow - Prepare sprint-ready stories with edge case coverage from a backlog or PRD.' It specifies the verb (prepare) and resource (sprint-ready stories), clearly distinguishing it from sibling workflow tools like pm_workflow_feature_kickoff or pm_workflow_quick_prd.

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 says 'Use this tool to get a complete workflow plan' and explains the AI orchestrates execution by calling tools in sequence. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for a workflow orchestrator.

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