kanbn_get_date_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not say whether the tool is purely read-only, whether the board must already exist, or what happens if no date format is configured.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core action 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify how the board is located when path is absent, whether the returned string is a formatting pattern or a resolved value, or any error behavior. These are minor gaps for a getter but still leave some ambiguity.

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 schema already describes the only parameter, 'path', with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the path is used, whether it is optional in practice, or how it relates to locating the board beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the board's date format string'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools because no other sibling targets the date format, but it does not add any additional context or scope qualifiers.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_get_config or kanbn_get_workspace_options. The description implies use when the date format string is needed, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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