list_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action and a filter option. It does not mention pagination behavior, default state behavior (e.g., whether omitting state returns all sprints), ordering, or any access requirements. This leaves significant ambiguity for a read/list operation.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the second fragment 'state: open/closed.' is grammatically awkward and reads more like a note than a complete sentence. It is concise, but the lack of structure slightly reduces clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still fails to address pagination parameters and the workspace_id requirement. For a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient contextual guidance. The presence of sibling get_sprint also suggests a need for usage distinction that is not provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'state' parameter by specifying open/closed, but workspace_id, page, and per_page are not explained beyond their schema definitions. The coverage is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct parameter values.

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 lists sprints for a workspace, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the state filter (open/closed), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_sprint, create_sprint, and update_sprint.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use list_sprints versus alternatives like get_sprint. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between this tool and similar list tools (e.g., list_projects, list_cards).

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