Get Board

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint: the output is intentionally limited to one line per ticket and never includes bodies, which is important scoping context. No contradiction with the annotations, and read-only behavior is already covered.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler: the core output shape is up front and the bodies caveat arrives immediately afterward. Every phrase 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 read-only annotation, 100% schema coverage, and simple required parameter (effort), the description tells an agent what it will get and explicitly what it will not get. It doesn't elaborate on 'Destination' semantics, but the sibling set and schema cover the remaining calling context.

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%, so the params (root and effort) are already documented. The description clarifies output behavior but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves; baseline 3 is 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 states the resource ('An Effort's Destination') and the exact output shape (one line per Ticket with id, title, kind, status, Edges; Frontier marked). It also distinguishes itself from get_tickets by explicitly noting it never returns bodies, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 gives clear context: it returns board-style summaries for an effort and explicitly directs body-fetching to get_tickets. It does not enumerate all alternatives (e.g., list_efforts, edit_map), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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