project_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: stages appear in order and each stage shows its tasks, which is more specific than the annotations alone.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is a separate, clearly scoped sentence.

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 read-only board view with a complete input schema and an output schema available, the description covers what the tool returns, how it differs from scrum boards, and its read-only nature via annotations. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already fully describes all three parameters (group_id, max_tasks, include_completed), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantic information about parameters, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 states that this tool provides a project kanban view with ordered stages and their tasks, which identifies the resource and content. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but it does distinguish itself from sprint_board by naming the scrum alternative.

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 explicitly says 'Для скрама используйте sprint_board', which tells the agent to use a sibling tool for scrum contexts. This is a clear when-not-to-use and alternative routing, leaving no ambiguity about when this board is appropriate.

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