get_sprint_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the result type (summary with cards and totals) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies), error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. There is no further detail on what happens with missing sprint IDs or how deleted cards are handled beyond the parameter.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is free of filler and directly communicates what the tool does.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the summary contains. 'Cards, totals' is vague; it does not specify which card fields, what totals are included, or the response structure. It also lacks information on error behavior or edge cases (e.g., nonexistent sprint ID), making the tool under-specified for an agent.

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 both parameters documented ('Sprint ID' and 'Exclude deleted cards from the summary'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, merely restating that it queries by sprint ID. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 verb (get), resource (sprint summary), and contents (cards, totals), and specifies it is keyed by sprint ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sprints, which list sprints rather than summarize a specific 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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose implies it is for retrieving a summary of a specific sprint, there is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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