Get Board Actions

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

Despite no annotations, the description conveys that this is a read-only inspection/debug tool and notes it returns a 'normalized' view, which adds behavioral context beyond the raw definition. However, it does not explicitly mention pagination behavior or potential performance implications, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clear alternative. Every word serves a purpose, with zero 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 existence of a full output schema and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description provides sufficient context by clarifying the tool's niche and directing to an alternative. It lacks detailed edge-case guidance, but the schema fills most gaps, making this slightly above-average.

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 provides 100% coverage of all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The description's mention of 'raw action history' adds minor context but does not elevate beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool returns a compact, normalized view of a board's raw action history, using specific verbs and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_list_changes, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 explicitly positions this as a low-level historical inspection/debug tool and directs users to get_list_changes for structural list-change auditing, providing clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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