framedeck-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the active board fallback logic, which is not covered by the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. This clarifies how the tool behaves when the optional parameter is omitted.

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 appropriately brief at two sentences, but the terminology inconsistency between 'columns' (tool name/siblings) and 'stages' (description) wastes interpretive effort without adding clarity.

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 single-parameter list operation with readOnly annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality and default behavior. However, it lacks any indication of return structure or relationship to the column lifecycle defined by sibling tools.

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% and the description largely repeats the schema's explanation of the board parameter ('uses active board if omitted and set'). It adds minimal semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 'List stages in a board' but the tool is named list_columns and siblings use 'column' terminology (create_column, delete_column). This terminology mismatch creates ambiguity about whether stages and columns are the same entity or different resources.

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 explains the active board fallback behavior ('Uses active board if set and no board specified'), which provides implicit guidance on when the board parameter can be omitted. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_boards or get_board_overview.

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