get_board_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, permissions, data aggregation effects, or whether the tool modifies state. The brief description lacks transparency beyond stating the function.

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 sentence with no filler, achieving conciseness. However, it could include more information without becoming verbose; the structure is minimal but appropriate.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify return values, possible metric categories, or any edge cases (e.g., what happens if boardId is invalid). The tool likely returns structured data, but the description omits critical context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (boardId and projectId). It does not explain how these parameters affect the metrics returned.

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 states the tool retrieves board metrics and gives an example (burndown data), which is clear about the action and resource. However, 'etc.' introduces ambiguity, and it could be more specific about what metrics are included, but overall it distinguishes from siblings like get_board and get_project_metrics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_sprint_progress, get_project_metrics). There is no mention of when-not or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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