tasks_kanban_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or potential rate limits. Since it's a read, a score of 3 is adequate given no contradictions.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It might benefit from noting that the response structure is grouped by status (e.g., columns), but for a Kanban view this is understandable. Overall sufficiently complete.

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%, meaning the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and brief schema descriptions; it only mentions grouping by status, which is implicit from 'Kanban board'. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Kanban board view of tasks grouped by status for a project or sprint. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Kanban board view' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from tasks_list which might also list tasks but without grouping.

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 for viewing tasks in a Kanban layout within a project/sprint context. No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings is provided; for example, tasks_list might be used for a flat list.

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