agile_getBoardIssues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable context about column placement and JQL subquery interactions, which goes beyond what the schema says and does not contradict the 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 action, and every clause adds relevant information without redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with detailed schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the endpoint, column placement, JQL behavior, and kanban subquery. It does not detail the response structure, but mentions 'column placement' as a hint, and given no output schema exists, this is acceptable. Missing pagination defaults are covered by the schema.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description enriches parameter understanding by explaining that JQL is ANDed with the board filter and that applyKanbanSubQuery defaults to true, providing semantic clarity not immediately obvious from 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 lists issues on an Agile board using the specific REST endpoint, and highlights the column placement feature and JQL integration. It distinguishes itself from sibling board tools (e.g., agile_getBoard, agile_getBoardConfiguration) by focusing on issue listing with status-to-column mapping.

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 clear context on how the tool behaves: optional JQL is ANDed with the board filter, and the kanban subquery is applied by default. This helps users understand when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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