Get Kanbini board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: archived cards excluded vs archived lists included with closed:true, display settings (collapsed, cardDensity, visibleCardLimit) do not truncate results, null return on bad id, and an offline fallback to the last on-disk export.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then constraints in order of importance. Dense but nearly every clause adds operational value; the display-settings sentence is slightly long but prevents a real misuse (assuming truncated results).

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers return shape, archival behavior, id fallback, error case, and offline behavior. Only minor gaps (full card field list, id format) remain for a single-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains the omission default (first board) and the null case for a non-matching id. It doesn't specify the id format, but the semantics are largely covered for a single optional parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one Kanbini board view') and enumerates the payload (project, lists, cards, labels), which clearly separates it from kanbini_list_boards and kanbini_get_card.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call kanbini_list_boards first when multiple boards may exist, use kanbini_list_archived for archived cards/lists, and notes the default behavior when boardId is omitted.

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