Get Kanban dashboard config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving a clear safety profile. The description adds context that it 'writes redacted receipts', which hints at side-effect logging, but doesn't elaborate on what those receipts are, where they go, or why the read-only operation writes anything at all — a slightly confusing behavioral disclosure that could use more explanation.

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 sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'writing redacted receipts' clause is a meaningful behavioral detail packed into the same sentence without waste. It's concise and earns its place, though the receipts clause could arguably be split for clarity.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return value detail is handled elsewhere. Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the empty schema means no parameter documentation burden. The description covers the data source and the receipt-writing side effect. This is reasonably complete for a simple read tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (there is nothing to document). The description adds value by clarifying the exact source (dashboard.kanban preferences in config.yaml) and the behavior (writes redacted receipts), which is more than what the empty schema conveys. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and this description meets it.

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 reads dashboard.kanban preferences from config.yaml and wraps a typed GET endpoint. The verb 'reads' plus the specific resource (dashboard.kanban preferences) distinguishes it from the many sibling kanban tools focused on tasks, boards, and links. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar config-read tools like hermes_config_summary or hermes_config_compare_surfaces.

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 indicates what it does (reads kanban config) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't name alternatives like hermes_config_summary or hermes_config_compare_surfaces for broader config reading, nor does it clarify when retrieving the raw dashboard.kanban preferences specifically would be preferable.

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