kaiten_get_chart_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only behavioral signal. It discloses that the tool returns board structure with columns and lanes, but it does not mention permissions, filtering behavior, or whether any boards are excluded from chart configuration.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or repeated schema data. Every sentence earns its place by stating either the purpose or the expected return content.

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 single-parameter read tool with a simple purpose, the description covers what is needed: the input space and the returned board columns/lanes structure. Without an output schema, a little more detail about the exact shape of the returned structure could help, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents space_id with the description 'Space ID' and has 100% coverage for its single parameter. The description only references 'in a space' and adds no additional meaning, syntax, or formatting guidance for the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get board structure for chart configuration in a space,' which clearly identifies what the tool does. The second sentence adds what is returned—boards with columns and lanes—which separates it from generic board-listing tools like kaiten_get_board or kaiten_list_boards.

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 phrase 'for chart configuration' and 'available for building charts' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, distinguishing it from general board or column retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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