tasklist_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: this tool returns a rollup/summary without pulling every task, indicating a lighter, aggregated operation. It also implies read-only via 'Get', but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free or mention auth/rate limits, which are less critical for a summary endpoint.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose, the second giving usage guidance and a rationale. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 that the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and a clear description of what it does and when to use it, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. The description fully covers purpose, usage, and the key behavioral nuance (rollup vs full list).

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%, with the single parameter 'project' well-described as 'The board's project id, data slug, or URL.' The description does not add further parameter detail, but that is unnecessary when the schema is fully self-explanatory, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Get a board's rollup' and enumerates what's included (counts, progress, epics, who's holding what). It distinguishes from tasklist_get by noting it avoids pulling every task, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over tasklist_get' and provides concrete use cases (reporting status, deciding what to pick up next) plus a rationale (a large board's full list is token-heavy). This directly guides when to use this tool over an alternative.

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