Get Kanban board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that it 'writes redacted receipts' which is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations, but doesn't elaborate on what those receipts are for or whether they have side effects. The description adds some context (redaction behavior) beyond the annotations, but doesn't explain return format or pagination semantics in depth. With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that efficiently enumerates the tool's function and all params without redundancy. It's concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('reads a Kanban board'). Minor deduction because 'writes redacted receipts' is a somewhat cryptic clause that could be more explanatory.

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 full output_schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. Annotations are rich (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), covering the safety profile. The 100% schema coverage handles parameter documentation. The only gap is lack of guidance about pagination defaults or default board behavior, but given the overall rich structured metadata, the description is adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (board, limit, offset, tenant, include_archived) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds minimal value beyond this—it just restates the parameter names without adding semantics about how they interact (e.g., what the default board is, how archived filtering combines with pagination). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 states it's a 'Typed GET /api/plugins/kanban/board wrapper that reads a Kanban board' with clear verb+resource (reads a board). It lists the key filtering capabilities (board slug, tenant, archived filter, limit, offset). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like hermes_kanban_boards_list (which lists boards vs. reads one board's tasks), though the tool name itself does differentiate reasonably. It's clear but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 says it reads a board with optional filters, implying when to use it (to read board contents). However, there's no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like hermes_kanban_task_get for single task reads or hermes_kanban_boards_list for enumerating boards. The availability of filter parameters implies scenification but exclusions aren't stated.

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