get_board_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the returned payload in unusual detail (columns, agents, per-card first line, assignees, stickers, work, comment count, last comment author, agentId, time) plus the deliberate exclusion of comment bodies. It does not state the read-only/no-side-effect profile or any auth or rate-limit constraints, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, no filler, and the scoping/alternative information is placed last where it belongs. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry it.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the return shape and the routing to alternatives, which is what an agent needs. Minor omissions (pagination, size limits, whether it is strictly read-only) keep it short of 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 there is only one parameter (boardId), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail about boardId, 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 ('Get a compact board') and enumerates exactly what the compact form contains, so the agent knows this is a trimmed board view. It also names the siblings it is not (get_board, get_comments), letting an agent distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states what this tool does not return ('No comment bodies') and routes the agent to the alternatives (get_comments, get_board) for full content. The only gap is that the inverse condition — when to prefer the summary over get_board — is left implicit rather than stated as a rule.

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