Get sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description discloses the key response fields. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation, the identifier needed, and the expected information returned in a compact and scannable form.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the required identifier, and the fields returned. It omits edge-case behavior such as not-found handling or authentication requirements, but nothing critical seems missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, with the schema already describing sprintId as 'Sprint ID.' The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond saying retrieval is by ID, so it does not go beyond the baseline expected when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single sprint by ID.' It also enumerates the returned fields (name, state, start/end dates, goal), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like list_sprints or get_sprint_issues.

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 description makes clear that this tool is used when you have a sprint ID and need one sprint's details. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' condition and single-resource scope provide clear context without exclusions.

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