Get Board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool never returns full bodies, and the output includes specific ticket fields with a Frontier marker. This goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations about the response structure.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output fields efficiently. While 'Destination' is not immediately clear, the rest of the sentence is concise and free of 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?

Given the simple parameter set, readOnly annotation, and lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value structure (lines per ticket with fields) and explicitly notes the absence of bodies. It could mention error conditions or ordering, but for this tool's complexity the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (effort and root) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or defaulting behaviors, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 it returns a board representation of an Effort with one line per Ticket (id, title, kind, status, Edges) and distinguishes itself from get_tickets by noting it never returns bodies. However, the opening phrase 'An Effort's Destination' is somewhat cryptic and may confuse users unfamiliar with the domain terminology.

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 tells users to use get_tickets for bodies, providing a clear alternative and an exclusion criterion. It doesn't specify other conditions or when to prefer this tool over list_efforts, but for a read-only board view this guidance is sufficient.

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