board_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the output shape (counts per column and total) and the cost advantage of the summarised result, which conveys a read-only style operation. It does not explicitly declare that it makes no modifications, but for a summarisation method that is safely implied, and no contradictions exist.

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 crisp sentences; the action and output are front-loaded, and the cost/purpose rationale is a separate line. Every word earns its place, no fluff.

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 summary operation with one required parameter and an output schema likely describing the counts, the description conveys the shape of the result and the intended use case. It lacks explicit guidance on how to obtain the project_id, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of list_boards among siblings make that omission minor. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema has one parameter, project_id, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it or offer any constraints or format. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not; however, the parameter name 'project_id' is reasonably self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb 'Summarise' and resource 'board', precisely noting the output is 'counts per column, plus its total card count'. The 'Cheaper than the full card list' phrase differentiates it from sibling get_board, clearly marking it as an aggregation tool.

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?

Tells when to reach for it: when the question is 'where does the work stand?', because it is cheaper than the full card list. It does not explicitly name sibling tools nor state a when-not, but the rationale leaves no room for ambiguity that full-detail retrieval would be needed for anything beyond a summary.

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