Board kanban

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'visão kanban' (kanban view), implying read-only behavior but not stating what it returns (e.g., tasks grouped by stage), whether it filters by project, what happens if both project_id and project_key are missing, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it omits essential information. While there is no waste, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the returned structure, how to specify the project, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not clarify the meaning of project_id or project_key. It only mentions 'de um projeto' (of a project), which vaguely suggests a project identifier but does not explain which parameter to use, whether they are alternatives, or their formats. The description adds no value beyond the raw parameter names.

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 the tool provides a kanban view (backlog/todo/doing/review/done) of a project. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the noun 'visão' (view) clearly indicates a read-only retrieval of a project's board. It distinguishes from siblings like work_list (general list) and work_list_projects (project list) by focusing on kanban stages, so an agent can infer its purpose.

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 gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like work_list or work_get. It does not state whether it is for a specific project scope, what parameters to use, or any conditions that would make this the preferred tool. Users are left to infer usage from the name and title.

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