list_kanban_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of `bucket_configuration_mode` and the important limitation that in `filter` mode, moving tasks between buckets is unavailable. It also implies read-only behavior through 'List,' though it doesn't explicitly confirm no 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?

Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core action and result, the second explains how to chain the output into other tools, and the third clarifies a meaningful behavioral distinction. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what it lists, what the ids are for, and the behavioral caveat about `filter` mode. There is no significant missing context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does connect the single parameter to the project context ('a project's kanban views'), but it does not explicitly document `project_id` beyond what the schema title already conveys. For a single obvious parameter this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'List a project's kanban views,' and explains that the result includes bucket ids, which is a distinctive return detail. It clearly identifies the tool's role relative to the bucket tools, so an agent can tell this from sibling list tools.

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 explicit guidance on how to use the output: pass an `id` from this tool as `view_id` to the bucket tools. It explains the typical case ('Most projects have one') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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