close_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the irreversible nature ('cannot be reopened') and the prerequisite state ('active'), which are critical for understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with essential behavioral details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (a destructive operation with state requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and irreversible effects, but could benefit from mentioning error handling or confirmation steps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'sprintId' parameter. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('close and complete a sprint') and the resource ('sprint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_sprint' or 'update_sprint'. It uses precise verbs that convey the exact operation.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: 'requires the sprint to be in the "active" state'. However, it does not mention alternatives like 'update_sprint' for other states or exclusions, which prevents a perfect score.

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