check_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that fix=true mutates state (repairs stale sprint checklists), which is valuable, but it doesn't say what 'stale checklists' means, whether repairs are destructive, or whether the tool reports findings or errors when issues are found.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the validation purpose and ending with the mutation flag. 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 minimal one-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: the default of fix, what validation failure looks like in the response, and what exactly counts as a stale checklist are all unstated.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's vague 'repair what can be repaired' by specifying what is fixed: stale sprint checklists, and by making fix=true the trigger for the repair mode.

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: validate consistency between tasks and sprints. It is clearly distinguishable from the CRUD siblings (create_task, change_sprint_status), though it doesn't name the closest read-only alternative like board_summary.

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 implies usage with fix=true for repairs, so an agent can infer a check-vs-repair fork. However, it doesn't say when to prefer this over board_summary, whether to check before mutating, or any prerequisites.

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