Get Board

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety; the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that autoFilterSettings is the board's own filter that shows which issues the board collects. It also discloses the board subcomponents returned, which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds value by explaining a non-obvious field. The parenthetical Russian term is a small, purposeful addition for localization.

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?

With a read-only annotation, an output schema, fully described parameters, and a clear purpose, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly routing to boards_get_all or board_get_columns when only IDs or columns are needed, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions, so the tool description adds little beyond schema. The description's focus on board contents does not explain the fields/board_id parameters further, keeping this at the baseline.

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-resource pair ('Get a single Yandex Tracker agile board') and enumerates what is included: settings, columns, estimation field, and working calendar. It also defines autoFilterSettings, which differentiates this tool from listing tools like boards_get_all and narrower tools like board_get_columns.

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 a concrete use case: read autoFilterSettings to learn which queue a board is about, and it implies single-board retrieval rather than listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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