agile_getBoardSnapshot

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: default skipping of the 'fabricated kanban Backlog column' and how to use excludeColumns (e.g., for Done). It also hints at size-related behavior via the preference for the ToFile variant. Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, so these additions are valuable and non-redundant.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and alternative. No fluff or redundant restatement of schema. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a clear high-level return format ('grouped by columns') which is sufficient for most use cases. It also mentions the default backlog behavior, which is a key edge case. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the grouped response, though the tool name and description imply a snapshot of columns→issues.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics for 'jql' (assignee/team filter) and for 'excludeColumns' (e.g., 'Done'), which helps the agent understand how to use these parameters. This extra context elevates the score slightly above baseline.

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: 'issues on a board grouped by kanban/scrum columns (status→column).' It uses a specific use case ('Daily-standup helper') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning grouping and referring to agile_getBoardSnapshotToFile for large dumps, setting it apart from agile_getBoardIssues.

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?

It explicitly gives usage guidance: 'Pass jql for assignee/team filter' and provides an alternative tool for large dumps: 'Prefer agile_getBoardSnapshotToFile for large dumps.' No explicit exclusions, but the alternative suggestion covers the main trade-off.

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