Sprint Compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool compares and that it lists problem themes, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies any data, require permissions, or describe the output format, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to cover core functionality and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main comparison action and metrics, with no wasted words.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of the tool's function and output (comparison metrics and problem themes). While it lacks an output schema or explicit return-value details, the description sufficiently covers what the tool delivers. The absence of annotations and the tool's analytical nature make this reasonably complete, though a note on read-only behavior would improve it.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (boardId and sprintId), including defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 compares the closed sprint to the previous one, enumerating specific metrics (completion, scope, carryover, reopens, cycle time, velocity) and lists recurring problem themes. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like retro_metrics, which likely focus on single-sprint analysis.

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 final sentence 'Use it to tell a one-off from a pattern' provides explicit usage context, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like retro_metrics or retro_brief, so it falls short of a 5.

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