board

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: columns are pulled from the initiative's registry in order with empties included, tasks are bucketed into them, and `when` rewinds the entire board including columns. It stops short of explicitly confirming the operation is a non-mutating read.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and return shape first, then the required parameter and the optional rewind semantics. Every clause carries information the schema or annotations do not.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains both inputs and describes the conceptual return structure (ordered columns with bucketed tasks). It lacks only a note on ordering/pagination edge cases, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only a marginal nuance over the schema by clarifying that `when` rewinds the whole board rather than just the cards, but the accepted time formats are restated from the schema.

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 ('Show') and resource ('the initiative's task board') and even outlines the returned structure (ordered status columns with tasks bucketed into them). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'board_status', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

'Requires `initiative`' gives a prerequisite, and the optional `when` use case is explained, so usage is implied clearly. However, it never says when to pick this over 'board_status', 'task', or 'overview', leaving sibling selection to inference.

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