List Kanban assignees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: 'writing redacted receipts' discloses an internal side effect (logged output), and 'Typed GET wrapper' clarifies it's a read operation. This adds value without contradicting 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?

The description is one efficient sentence that packs purpose, mechanism (typed GET wrapper), scope (optional board-scoped task counts), and a notable side effect (writing redacted receipts). No wasted words, appropriately concise.

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 a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema present, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the tool is well-specified. The description's mention of 'redacted receipts' addresses an element not in annotations or schema. Minor gap: doesn't clarify what a 'receipt' is or why the side effect matters to the caller, but overall complete given the simple surface.

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% with only one optional parameter (board). The schema already documents 'Board slug to query. Defaults to the configured default board.' The description adds the concept of 'board-scoped task counts' which relates to the board parameter, providing mild extra context, but the schema largely carries the load.

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 what the tool does: lists available assignee profiles via a wrapper around GET /api/plugins/kanban/assignees, with optional board-scoped task counts. Verb+resource is clear. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, 'assignees' is unique among the kanban tools, and the 'writing redacted receipts' detail adds distinguishing 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 implies when to use it (when you need to see assignee profiles) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It notes 'optional board-scoped task counts' giving some usage context. No explicit exclusion or alternative tool guidance.

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