get_board_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only operation ('Get'), lists the metrics returned, and discloses an optional user_id scoping behavior. It doesn't mention permissions or edge cases, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the main action and resource. Every word earns its place; it is concise and structured effectively.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and optional scoping well. It doesn't detail the exact return structure of the metrics, but that is not essential for invoking the tool. Minor gaps like clarifying project_id's role prevent a perfect score.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains user_id's purpose ('scope to one user') but does not explain project_id or board_id. However, their names are reasonably self-evident, and the description does clarify that board refers to a sprint. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 what the tool does: 'Get a board's (sprint's) metrics' and even lists the metric types (burndown / velocity / completion). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_metrics and get_milestone_metrics, which target different resources.

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 when to use this tool: when you need board/sprint metrics, and optionally filtered by a user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names. A higher score would require explicit 'use X instead for project metrics' guidance.

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