wetrack_list_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive search, comma-separated statuses with valid values, how include_completed excludes completed sprints, and pagination defaults. It omits auth, rate limits, and ordering, but these are less critical for a read-only list tool with an output schema.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a tight Args list. Each line adds distinct value with no redundant or promotional language.

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?

All six optional parameters are documented, and the output schema covers return structure, so the tool is largely self-sufficient. It does not explicitly contrast with wetrack_get_project_sprints, but the scope phrase 'across all projects or scoped to one project' provides enough context to route correctly.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: project_id as a UUID filter, search as a case-insensitive substring, status with allowed values, include_completed semantics, and page/limit defaults.

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 states the verb 'List', the resource 'sprints', and the scope explicitly: 'across all projects or scoped to one project.' This distinguishes it from project-specific siblings like wetrack_get_project_sprints and single-sprint tools like wetrack_get_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?

The scope statement ('across all projects or scoped to one project') provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion decision to the agent.

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