jira_get_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as 'read-only', implying no side effects. However, it fails to mention what happens if the sprint ID is invalid, whether authentication is required, or any rate limit considerations. For a simple get operation, the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical 'read-only' adds a key behavioral hint. Every element earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context about where sprint IDs come from (e.g., from jira_search or jira_get_sprints), and does not mention the output schema or any error states. The completeness is acceptable for a minimal read operation but could be improved with a line about expected input or usage.

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 description does not add meaning to the parameter beyond the schema. While the schema declares 'sprint_id' as a required integer, the description merely says 'by id', which is generic. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not provide details like the source or format of the sprint ID. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the deficit is small but present.

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', the resource 'sprint', and the method 'by id', making it unambiguous. It also labels the operation as 'read-only', which aligns with the tool's nature. Among siblings like jira_get_issue or jira_get_epic, this description sufficiently distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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 (e.g., jira_get_sprint_issues). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid sprint ID, nor does it indicate scenarios where it should be avoided. The 'read-only' hint is the only contextual clue.

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