get_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait: done/cancelled issues are count-only stubs unless include_closed=true. However, it does not state read-only status, return shape, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that states the core purpose and the most behaviorally important default. Every phrase earns its place and the content is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description combined with the input schema provides enough context for an agent to understand what the board renders, how issues are grouped, and how closed issues appear. Some return-structure details are missing, but overall the description is sufficient for a moderately simple read-style tool.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description mostly restates the group_by and include_closed behavior found in the schema, but does not explain max_per_column; the schema itself carries the semantic load.

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 indicates a board view of issues, with concrete grouping options: status, priority, or module. This identifies the tool as a grouped/visual view and distinguishes it from simple issue-fetching tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 board view wording implies this tool should be used when a grouped board-style presentation is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_issues or search, nor does it state any exclusion criteria.

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