Workboard Get Workstream Columns Tool

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the non-obvious derivation mechanism and the incompleteness of results (empty columns are silently omitted). It does not mention ordering, permissions, or pagination, but for a read-only lookup it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, mechanism second, usage tip third. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the surprising behavior (columns absent when empty). The only minor gap is the absence of any note on column ordering or how column_id ties back to action items accessible via other tools.

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% with a single ws_id parameter already documented as a positive integer, so the schema carries the load. The description's mention of the 'workstream's action items' loosely ties ws_id to a workstream, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 precise verb+resource: 'Get the custom Kanban columns in use on a workstream.' The added detail that columns are derived read-only from the workstream's action items makes it uniquely identifiable among the sibling tools, none of which return columns.

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?

Explains the motivating context ('The API has no column endpoint, so columns are read off the workstream's action items') and a key caveat for interpreting results ('A column with no cards in it will not appear'). It also tells the agent what to do with the output ('Use the column_id values to tell which column a card sits in'), though it names no alternative tool for retrieving column metadata another way.

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