get_board_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the output (id, name, position) and indicates a read operation. However, it does not disclose any limitations, rate limits, or authorization needs. The behavioral context is minimal but adequate for a simple list tool.

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 exceptionally concise with two clear sentences and an args section. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, output fields, and a usage hint. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'project_slug: Board slug. Defaults to the configured project.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior beyond the schema's title. Since only one parameter exists, the description compensates well.

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 clearly states it lists columns (cells) of a board, with specific fields id, name, position. It distinguishes from siblings like get_board or list_boards by targeting cells specifically. The mention of using the id for moving cards adds practical context.

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 usage for moving cards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_cards or other board tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, providing only implicit guidance.

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