get_active_sprint_issues

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

The description discloses that it performs parallel fetch and returns issue IDs. Since no annotations are provided, this adds useful behavioral context beyond the name. It stops short of detailing pagination or limits, but is adequate for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 concise with a one-sentence summary followed by structured parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the docstring format is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers parameters, usage context, and behavioral hints (parallel fetch). Minor gap: no mention of potential limits or error conditions, but overall complete for its purpose.

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%, so the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 4 parameters: boards (comma-separated, partial match), exclude_states (comma-separated states to skip), ids_only (controls return format), and instance (optional YouTrack instance). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool collects issue IDs across current sprints of all boards, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_issues or get_issues by focusing on sprint-based truth.

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 explains when to use the tool (for 'what's actually in flight' across the org, sprint-based rather than state guessing) and mentions it feeds into translation/audit/digest flows. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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