agile_getBoardConfiguration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return contents (ordered columns, status→column map, kanban subQuery, filter) and the mapping behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and includes only relevant details about the tool's output, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema and a simple 2-parameter tool, the description adequately conveys the return value components (columns, status map, subQuery, filter) and purpose. It does not fully describe all possible behaviors, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the primary output, making it sufficient.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (boardId and resolveStatusNames), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds context about the status-to-column mapping, which indirectly clarifies the resolveStatusNames parameter, but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 board column configuration with specific components (ordered columns, status→column map, kanban subQuery, filter) and maps issue status IDs to column names. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like agile_getBoardIssues or agile_getBoard.

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 retrieving board configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the description and sibling list.

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