get_jira_issues_by_sprint

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Mentions source (Snowflake) and return format (dictionary with issues and metadata), but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, authentication, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded purpose, clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is useful with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with 3 params and output schema present, description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. Lacks prerequisites or error handling, but adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides examples for sprint_name and project, and explains limit. Adds value beyond schema by clarifying format and usage, though could include more detail like valid project key patterns.

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 'Get all JIRA issues in a specific sprint by sprint name from Snowflake', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. Differentiates from siblings like get_jira_issue_details (single issue) and list_jira_issues (all issues).

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?

Implicitly tells when to use: when you have a sprint name and want its issues. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings and the clear purpose make it sufficient.

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