Get Board Actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes only what the tool returns (activity feed) but doesn't disclose default behavior (default limit 50 is in schema), pagination, ordering, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a read/list tool this is a moderate gap, not severe, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It earns its place with no fluff. It could add a small usage hint, but as written it's appropriately sized and to the point.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 simple parameters, the description is adequate but thin. It clearly states what the tool does and the schema covers parameters, but it leaves out behavioral details like default limit, pagination, and distinction from get_card_actions. For a simple list-type tool this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no detail about parameters, but the schema already fully documents limit, filter, and boardId. The filter parameter's comma-separated action types are clear from the schema example, so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Get the activity feed (actions) for a board' clearly states a specific verb (get), a resource (board), and the concept of an activity feed. It distinguishes itself from get_board, get_board_lists, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_card_actions, its closest sibling, though the resource scope (board vs card) is implicit.

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: call when you need the activity feed of a board. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention get_card_actions as an alternative for card-level activity. The schema's filter parameter hints at use cases but the description itself provides no explicit routing guidance.

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