display_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 discloses the output format and shape (markdown, columns per status), which is genuinely useful, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it renders or writes anywhere, or any side effects — a gap for a display tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though extremely terse.

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 no-annotation display tool with no output schema, the description leaves the rendered content (which fields each task shows, ordering, empty-state behavior) unspecified. Parameter documentation is complete via the schema, but the visible result of the call is under-described.

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%, so both the category enum and show_all default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Generate) plus resource (visual task board), and adds the output format (markdown) and structure (columns for each status). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling task tools such as list_tasks or get_daily_summary.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between this board view and list_tasks or get_daily_summary purely from the name.

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