task_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not disclose whether the board is purely visual, whether any data is mutated, what happens with missing filters, or what the return format is. No side effects or prerequisites are documented.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or filler words; every word adds value.

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 is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but omits return value details, behavior with no filters, and any edge cases. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that are not compensated by annotations or output schema.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('visual task board') with grouping options ('by phase, state, or priority'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tasks (which likely returns a flat list) and task_insights (which suggests analytics).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, even though sibling tools like get_tasks, task_insights, and create_task exist. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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