kanbn_reserved_board_slugs

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. It only says 'list', which implies a read operation, but it does not state that the path parameter is optional, what a typical response looks like, or that no data is modified. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, which is highly concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the main purpose. However, it does not mention the optional nature of the path parameter, potential output format, or any side effects beyond 'list', leaving minor gaps for an agent that wants to invoke it correctly without prior knowledge.

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% for the 'path' parameter, which already documents its meaning as 'Path to the project root directory'. The description adds no extra semantic information about how the path affects the result, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 and resource ('List the board slugs reserved by Kanbn'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like kanbn_list_boards or kanbn_validate_board_slug, though the word 'reserved' narrows the scope to a specific set of slugs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not suggest using it to check if a slug is reserved before creating a board, nor does it contrast with kanbn_validate_board_slug. The context must be inferred entirely.

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