kaiten_get_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key behavioral outcome — the returned board includes columns and lanes — but it does not mention permissions, error behavior for invalid board IDs, or whether this is a pure read operation.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, and the second adds useful return-shape detail.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the required identifier, and the principal content of the response. It could be enriched with failure/permission notes, but for the tool's low complexity, this is sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage: board_id is described as 'Board ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action ('Get'), a specific resource ('Kaiten board'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). It also adds meaningful return context ('Returns board with columns and lanes'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_boards and other board-related operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_list_boards, kaiten_get_space, or kaiten_get_card. It does not mention how the board_id should be obtained, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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