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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the returned fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behaviors like default filtering (include_completed defaults to false), pagination, or error handling. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns action items...') and uses no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with complete schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotations, the description provides adequate context by listing key output fields. However, it does not mention the include_completed default or differentiate from the similar retro.actions.list sibling, so it is not fully complete.

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 board_id and include_completed fully described. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 the tool 'Returns action items from a retrospective board', using a specific verb and resource with board-scoping that distinguishes it from sibling tools like retro.actions.list. It also lists key returned fields (status, priority, assignee, due date), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for board-specific action items but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retro.actions.list or retro.actions.create. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the agent gets only implied context.

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