vibemap_get_kanban_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'real-time' adds some context but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It lacks details on caching, rate limits, or response size.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core functionality. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description explains the output structure (grouped by status columns, features with stories nested). It is complete for its moderate complexity, though it could mention if there are limits on the number of results or ordering.

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?

With schema coverage at 50% (only includeCriteria has a description in schema), the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for projectId. The description's mention of 'features with their stories nested' hints at what includeCriteria affects, but this is not explicit. 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?

Description clearly states 'Get a real-time kanban board view of a project grouped by status columns. Shows features with their stories nested underneath.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('kanban board view'), and the mention of 'status columns' and 'nested' differentiates it from other list/get tools among siblings.

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 says 'Ideal for an IDE agent to understand what's planned, in progress, and done,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like vibemap_list_features or vibemap_get_project_context.

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