get_sprint_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for viewing,' implying read-only behavior, but does not confirm if it's safe (e.g., non-destructive) or detail other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, as it leaves critical operational aspects unspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a brief usage note. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates core information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, pagination), output format, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide an agent, but it falls short, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 the input schema fully documents both parameters ('sprintId' and 'maxResults') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get all issues in a specific sprint.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('issues in a specific sprint'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_issue' (single issue) or 'query_wiki' (different resource), which prevents a perfect score.

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 some implied usage context: 'Useful for viewing what tickets are currently in a sprint.' This suggests it's for current sprint analysis, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue' (for single issues) or 'get_sprints' (for sprint lists). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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