list_columns

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior burden itself. 'List all' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose details such as return format, ordering, or what happens when no project context exists. The basic behavior is clear, though richer context is absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'List all kanban columns in a project' manages to convey scope and action efficiently.

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 simple read-only list operation with fully documented optional parameters, the description and schema together provide enough context to call the tool. There is no output schema, but the absence of return-value details is a minor gap for a straightforward enumeration 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 description coverage is 100%: both teamId and projectId are documented with 'auto from session if omitted.' The description adds no further parameter detail, and since the schema already fully covers the parameters, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('kanban columns in a project'), making the tool's main function obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_tasks or get_project, but the resource is distinct enough to avoid ambiguity.

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, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. 'In a project' hints at the need for project context, but the description does not explain which project or how to select it.

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