planka_get_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It honestly describes that the tool returns a 'complete workspace structure' and that using 'board_name' yields a 'fraction of the full dump,' implying a read-only operation. No contradictions exist, though it could mention auth needs or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable guidance on parameter usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool (returning workspace structure) and the absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat vague about the exact return format or structure. It lists components but does not detail nested hierarchies or data format, which could leave the agent uncertain about the response.

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 provides parameter descriptions with high coverage. The description adds further value by explaining scoping trade-offs (e.g., 'cheaper than a full dump' for board_name) and explicitly linking parameters to the behavior. This goes beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get complete workspace structure (projects, boards, lists, labels, users).' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace structure'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'planka_get_card' or 'planka_get_labels' by offering a comprehensive dump with optional scoping.

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 provides good usage guidance: 'Pass project_name or board_name to scope the response' and explicitly notes that 'board_name returns a fraction of the full dump.' This helps the agent decide when to use parameters. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools for specific queries, leaving some room for interpretation.

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