cos_task_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about keyset pagination and how to fetch additional complete/archive items via cursor and status_filter, which is beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise pagination note. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core grouping and pagination behavior, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, with 8 optional parameters and no guidance on their purpose or interactions, the description is not fully complete for a complex filtering tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains cursor and status_filter in the context of pagination, leaving the other six parameters (epic, kind, limit, swimlane, page_size, include_archive) unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 the tool returns board state grouped by (swimlane, status) with WIP info, using a specific verb ('Return') and a distinct resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cos_task_search or cos_task_daily, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving board state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The pagination note gives some usage direction for loading more results, but there is no comparative guidance.

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