taskops_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that results are grouped by the required move and lists the group labels, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, return format, or pagination behavior.

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 a single sentence plus an imperative, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('THE pulse') and immediately follows with the grouping detail. Every element earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns to be complete. It lists the group names but does not say what each group contains (e.g., card count, IDs), nor how parameters like 'window' or 'milestone' alter the result. The tool is usable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 has 100% description coverage, so all five parameters are documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, such as how the window or milestone affects the grouping. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly indicates this tool provides an overview of the board's current state ('what the board is waiting for') grouped by required actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools (take, merge, etc.) by being a high-level status read. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on implication.

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 instruction 'Open every turn with this' provides clear timing for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, but the grouping of moves implies it should be used before acting on specific cards. A stronger version would mention using it before taskops_take or taskops_merge.

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