Get board activity

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond what annotations provide: it discloses the ordering ('newest first'), the type of changes covered ('task/stage/member changes'), and the role requirement. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint is present.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second gives the access requirement. Every word is purposeful and there is no redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides high-level context: what an audit trail contains, ordering, and role. It doesn't describe pagination or return fields, but the schema covers parameters and the tool is a straightforward read-only list. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description is not required to repeat them. The description's mention of 'whole board' aligns with board_id/board_slug but adds little beyond schema. Achieves the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('audit trail for a whole board'), and the specific scope ('task/stage/member changes'). The phrase 'newest first' adds behavioral context. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_task_activity by emphasizing board-level scope.

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 explicitly states the authorization prerequisite ('Requires ADMIN/OWNER role') and indicates the board-level context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_task_activity, but the scope is unambiguous. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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