Get board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: ordering guarantees for lanes and tasks, and that task bodies are stripped, which prevents an agent expecting full task content. It stops short of describing other returned task fields.

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 terse sentences with zero waste, front-loading the return shape and then the routing caveat. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description conveys the return shape (ordered lanes containing ordered tasks) and an important omission (no bodies), which is enough to call it correctly. It could say slightly more about what task fields are included beyond bodies.

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 100% and the single 'project' parameter is documented as 'Project id or name,' so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies project scoping but adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: returns 'every lane of a project in order, with its tasks in order.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_task by noting bodies are omitted, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly with the condition that selects it ('use get_task for one') because bodies are omitted here. This covers the main when-to-use decision, though it doesn't address relation to list_projects (overview vs. one board).

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