Get Board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Fetch' and the tool name clearly indicate a read operation, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail about the completionSummary field. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), permissions, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a valuable return-field detail without increasing verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter board fetch with an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a notable return field. It could explicitly mention that the board includes all columns and tickets in order, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter projectKey ('Project key identifier'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('full board for a project'), and the content ('columns and tickets'). It also highlights the 'completionSummary' field, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on individual tickets, columns, or lists of projects.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it fetches the full board for a project, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like kanban_find_ticket or kanban_search_tickets, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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