agile_getBoard

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 known. The description adds that it returns only name and type metadata, and points to siblings for other data. However, it does not add deeper behavioral context such as potential errors, response format, or authentication requirements, so it stays at a baseline given the existing 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately directs to alternatives. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (name, type), identifies the input (by id), and provides navigation to sibling tools for other data needs. No gaps are apparent.

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%: the sole parameter `boardId` has a description ('Board id from RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=…'). The tool description reiterates 'by id' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get Agile board metadata by id (name, type)'. It specifies a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('Agile board metadata'), and the exact scope ('by id', 'name, type'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives for other use cases.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For columns use agile_getBoardConfiguration; for daily column dump use agile_getBoardSnapshot.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the named siblings, which is clear and actionable.

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