get_sprint

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 carries a lower burden, but it adds essentially nothing beyond that: no note on what 'parameters' covers, no error behavior for an unknown id, no pagination or scope context.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('by id') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally sized.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and annotations covering the read-only profile, a minimal description can suffice. Still, the ambiguous term 'parameters' leaves the agent unsure whether this returns sprint settings, issues in the sprint, or metadata.

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% and the single sprintId parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. 'by id' does at least identify the parameter's role as the lookup key, but it gives no type, format, or source guidance for an opaque id.

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 (get) and resource (sprint) scoped by id, so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_board_sprints or get_issue, and 'parameters' is vague about what sprint data is actually returned.

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 on when to use this versus get_board_sprints (list sprints for a board) or the other sprint lifecycle tools. There are no prerequisites, no mention of id formats or where a sprintId comes from, leaving the agent to infer everything.

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