get_board_sprints

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description need not restate safety. It does add useful behavioral context — that the call only works for agile boards — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or failure behavior on non-agile boards.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scoping constraint appended. No filler and nothing wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally viable. It omits pagination and return-shape information, which matters for a 'list' tool that has no output schema to fall back on.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents boardId. The phrase 'of a board' implies the parameter's role but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List sprints of a board'), which is clearly distinct from the singular get_sprint and the mutation siblings like create_sprint/delete_sprint. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 parenthetical '(agile boards only)' gives a real scoping condition that tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it offers no guidance on alternatives (e.g., get_sprint for a single sprint) or what to do for non-agile boards, leaving usage largely implied.

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