board_actions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that histories should be bounded with filters/limits/paging, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or return semantics.

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 compact sentence with the use case and key invocation guidance front-loaded. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a retrieval tool.

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?

The schema richly documents all 11 parameters, which compensates for the short description. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not fully explain expected return shape or safety profile, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, so parameter documentation is already strong. The description groups filter, limit, page, since, before, and fields as history-bounding controls, but adds little detail beyond the schema and omits the member-related toggles.

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 identifies the resource scope as board-level activity/comments and implies retrieval for auditing. It is clear enough to distinguish board-wide history from card- or list-level actions, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It gives a clear use case: auditing recent board activity or comments. It also directs the caller to use filtering and pagination controls for large histories, but does not state when to use sibling tools like card_actions instead.

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