rx_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Только чтение' largely restates structured data. However the description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing payload shape (ordered columns, cards carrying code/assignees/deadlines) and clarifying that the board id must come from rx_boards, which is not captured by annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then sequences the id-source note and the sibling routing. Every sentence carries routing or content information with no filler.

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 is complete: it explains what the board payload contains, how to obtain the id, and which alternatives cover adjacent needs.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already spells out that id is 'число после # в строке rx_boards'. The description's 'Id доски берётся из rx_boards' reinforces the same sourcing hint but adds little beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: returns one whole agile board, describing its columns left-to-right and the cards within with code, assignees and deadlines. It explicitly distinguishes itself from rx_boards (id source) and rx_tickets (card lookup), so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (the 'what is currently in work on the board' question) and a when-not with a named alternative ('if the board is unknown or you need a card by name, use rx_tickets'). Nothing is left to inference.

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