Read a naming kanban board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states 'Read-only, paginated, and free' and mentions the required 'naming:read' scope. It also discloses the return payload details (status, rank, notes, provenance, updatedAt) and the stale-write mechanism, providing behavior beyond simple read semantics.

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 dense but efficient—five sentences that stay on topic. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return-value details, use cases, and constraints. Every sentence contributes information without padding.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return fields (compensating for missing output schema), pagination behavior, filtering, scope requirement, and the relationship to sibling write tools, giving an agent all necessary context to invoke and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by framing statuses as filtering by kanban column ('shortlisted or finalist') and relating pagination to a list view. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, earning a 4.

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 starts with 'Read one project's candidate kanban,' which precisely identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on the candidate kanban and explicitly referencing related write tools (move_name_candidates, rank_name_candidates), making it clear this is the read-side counterpart.

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 practical context: 'Filter by status to review a single column' and notes that the returned updatedAt is passed to move/rank tools to guard against stale writes. This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., 'use X instead when...'), so a 4 is appropriate.

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