get_active_sprint_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: parallel fetch across boards, output variability based on ids_only, and partial matching for board names. This extra context is helpful without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then follows a well-structured Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 description covers the main usage context, parameter semantics, and output formats. With annotations handling safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It might lack explicit edge-case handling (e.g., no active sprints), but overall it provides sufficient information 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: boards (partial match, empty=all), exclude_states (comma-separated), ids_only (return format control), and instance (optional). This gives agents clear guidance on how to set each argument.

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: 'Collect issue IDs across current sprints of all boards'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sprint-based truth rather than state guessing. The purpose is immediately evident.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use for "what's actually in flight" across the org — sprint-based truth, not state guessing' and mentions it feeds into translation/audit/digest flows. It provides clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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