Find Tickets in Column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a non-mutating filter operation and identifies two filtering modes, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens when both priorities and min/max bounds are supplied or whether the bounds are inclusive.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action and primary filtering input are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes information.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits how to specify the column, the role of the required projectKey, limit behavior, and how the two priority-filtering modes interact, so an agent would have to infer these details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It clarifies only priorities/priorityMin/priorityMax as a 'priority band,' leaving projectKey, columnId, columnName, and limit semantically unexplained and not stating whether columnId or columnName is the expected selector.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Filter') and resource ('tickets within a column'), then narrows the operation to 'by priority band.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as kanban_find_ticket and kanban_search_tickets, so an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 second sentence gives a usable directive ('Supply priorities or priorityMin/priorityMax bounds'), which tells the agent what inputs to provide. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over kanban_find_ticket or kanban_search_tickets, nor does it state exclusions; the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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