list_board

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

The description discloses that 'task_count' may exceed the number of tasks returned due to caps, and suggests using a filter to obtain the remaining tasks. This is a useful behavioral detail about potential pagination or truncation. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the full burden and is reasonably transparent, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or other side effects.

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 short but uses ornate, indirect phrasing ('The whole board', 'thinner question') instead of straightforward language. While it packs useful information, the poetic style detracts from clarity and could be more concise and direct.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers the tool's purpose, differentiation from a sibling, and a behavioral nuance (task caps), but it does not explain any parameters or provide broader context such as typical use cases or required permissions. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain what 'filter', 'view_id', or 'project_id' mean. It only mentions that 'filter' uses the same syntax as 'list_tasks', but does not elaborate on the others. With no compensation for the complete lack of parameter documentation, this dimension is poorly addressed.

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 clarifies that this tool lists both columns and tasks (unlike 'list_buckets' which only lists columns), and mentions it takes the same arguments as list_buckets. However, the wording is somewhat metaphorical ('The whole board') and could be more direct about the exact resource returned.

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 distinguishes when to use this tool over 'list_buckets' ('Reach for that one when the tasks are of no interest, and for this one when they are') and advises narrowing results with a 'filter' if task_count exceeds returned tasks, referencing the filter syntax of 'list_tasks'. This provides clear usage guidance relative to alternatives.

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