board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It establishes the tool as read-oriented ('Read it') and clarifies the meaning of the board state, but says nothing about pagination, the max_tokens budget, permissions, or the shape of the returned content.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition and the key usage instruction last, with no filler sentences. The phrasing is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the concept and the status/path semantics but omits the project filter and the token budget. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents two of four parameters well: path with an example ('ui/dashboard') and status with enum values ('open|done|dropped|all') that the schema lacks. It says nothing about 'project' or 'max_tokens', so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 what the artifact is ('the project board') and enumerates its contents (asks, targets with goal/current, expectations, actions, deliverables) and implies the read action via 'Read it before working.' It distinguishes itself from board_add/board_update by being the read side, though it never states that verb explicitly as the tool's function.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'Read it before working and before you stop,' plus the rationale that everything open is still owed to the user. It does not, however, name the write siblings (board_add/board_update) as the alternatives when the agent needs to modify rather than read.

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