kitty.board.summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially carries the burden. It discloses what the summary includes (columns, counts), which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention permissions, or address potential side effects. The verb 'Get' implies safety, but the disclosure is not explicit.

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 lists the key return elements. Each word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys what data will be returned. It lists the main components, making it complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not detail the exact structure or formatting.

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 only parameter, projectSlug, is described in the schema with 'Project slug', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('board summary') and enumerates the exact contents (columns, member count, label count, open ticket count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list individual entities like columns.list or members.list.

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, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implies a high-level overview, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling list tools or suggest a decision process.

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