kanbn_boards_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is the only behavioral signal; the description does not disclose what statistics are included (e.g., whether archived tasks or column breakdowns are counted), what the return value looks like, or what happens on an invalid path. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word adds meaning, and the length is appropriate for a tool with one optional parameter.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and one sentence leaves real gaps: what exactly the 'per-board task statistics' consist of and what shape the result takes. However, with a single optional path parameter and a clear reporting purpose, the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally adequate.

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?

The single parameter `path` has full schema description coverage ('Path to the project root directory'), so the schema already documents it completely. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('a summary with per-board task statistics'), making the tool's reporting nature clear. It is a complete sentence with a defined scope, but it does not differentiate from sibling reporting tools like kanbn_burndown or kanbn_list_boards, so an agent must infer why this one exists.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single declarative sentence with no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role purely from its name and one-line description.

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