agile_locateIssues

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 covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the status-to-column mapping and the check for filter/subQuery match, which goes beyond annotations. It does not detail edge cases like missing issues, but the schema covers the applyBoardFilter behavior.

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: the first states the core action and output, the second gives a practical use case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and rich parameter schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. It does not detail the exact return structure, but that is less critical for a read-only mapping tool, and the schema covers parameter behavior.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (boardId, issueKeys, applyBoardFilter). The description only references 'board filter/subQuery' without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Locate' with resource 'issue keys on a board' and clearly defines the expected outcome: mapping each issue status to a column name and indicating whether it matches the board filter/subQuery. This distinguishes it from siblings like agile_getBoardIssues (which likely lists issues) and structure_get (which retrieves structures).

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 a concrete use case ('where is PROJ-1 on the kanban?'), making the intended usage clear. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the context is evident.

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