tb_query

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. Words like 'stable, bounded, authorized' hint at consistency and access limits but are vague and unexplained. There is no information about pagination, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The tool likely performs a query, but the specifics of what 'snapshot' means or how 'bounded' applies are absent.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length but not in substance. It front-loads a keyword 'Query' but then uses vague adjectives without explanation. It is not structured to convey key information first; it's simply too brief to be useful.

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 tool has a complex schema (13 params including nested objects and enums) and no output schema. The description is grossly insufficient to understand what the tool does, its inputs, behavior, or return values. Given the lack of annotations, the description must carry full context but fails entirely. This is a major gap.

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 describes 13 parameters, but the description provides zero insight into them. With 0% schema description coverageaine, the description does nothing to explain parameter meanings, relationships, or usage. For example, 'cursor' and 'status' are present in the schema but never mentioned. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Query a stable, bounded, authorized direct-v1 task snapshot' is too vague. It identifies the verb 'query' and a resource 'task snapshot', but fails to clarify what a task snapshot is, what 'direct-v1' implies, or how this differs from sibling tools like tb_get or tb_batch_status. It doesn't even mention that it pertains to board tasks.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits any context about supported use cases, prerequisites, or why one would choose tb_query over tb_get or other query-like siblings. No exclusions or differentiators are mentioned.

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