Доска

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that columns and lanes are usually nested in the response, which is valuable behavioral context, but it does not clarify whether that nesting is guaranteed, what happens for an invalid ID, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the useful response detail. No wasted wording.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and notes the typical nested payload. Minor gaps around error behavior and guarantees keep it from a 5.

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 100% and the single board_id parameter is documented in the schema as 'ID доски'. The description restates 'по ID' without adding format or constraint details, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает доску по ID' – returns a board by ID) and adds that columns and lanes are usually embedded. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like kaiten_list_boards or kaiten_get_space.

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?

Usage is implied by the required board_id and the 'get by ID' semantics, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus kaiten_list_boards or the column/lane list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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