get-board

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states 'Get Kanban board structure' without detailing what 'structure' entails. It doesn't disclose if the operation is purely read-only or if it has side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about the behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description lacks details about what 'board structure' includes (e.g., columns, tasks, metadata). With no output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the return format. For a simple parameterless tool, more clarification is needed.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are none). The description simply restates the purpose without adding meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, providing additional details is not necessary. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description adds no extra context.

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 'Get Kanban board structure' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Kanban board structure'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, which focus on tasks, comments, and labels, by referring to the board itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify if this should be called before other operations or if it's simply a read operation.

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