list_sprints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list sprints' and mentions filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, return format, or any side effects. It implies a read operation but does not state it explicitly, nor does it mention permissions or scope. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no fluff, meeting basic conciseness. However, it lacks useful structure such as front-loading key constraints or providing alternative guidance. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning pagination or default behavior) while remaining concise, so it rates a 3 rather than a 4 or 5.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context on behavior and response expectations. It only covers the basic action and filter, but omits pagination details, default limit, sorting, or what fields are returned. This leaves an agent uncertain about the full output and call semantics, making it incomplete for a simple but not fully self-explanatory tool.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, active, offset) with 100% coverage. The description adds 'optionally filtered by active status', which essentially restates the active parameter's schema description. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sprints'), and mentions optional filtering by active status. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_* tools, but the resource name is distinct enough (sprints vs. spaces, boards, columns, etc.). A score of 4 reflects clarity without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_sprint_summary) or conditions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it, leaving the agent to infer context from the resource name alone.

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