getJiraBoardConfig

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content shape of the response (filter, column layout, mapped statuses), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about permissions, failures, or volatility beyond that.

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?

It is a single tight fragment with zero filler and the resource is front-loaded. The terseness is appropriate, though the same brevity leaves required detail out.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the response contains reasonably well. It still omits any indication of when to use it and what boardId refers to, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 single parameter boardId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond its name and type. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap as required for low-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 fragment names the specific resource (a board's configuration) and enumerates what it exposes – filter, column layout, and mapped statuses – which distinguishes it from siblings like listJiraBoards and getJiraBoardIssueData. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the retrieval action itself must be inferred from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus listJiraBoards or getJiraBoardIssueData, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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