Get Kanban Board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns all columns with their items' as behavioral context — it says nothing about auto-detection of repo/owner, per-column truncation at item_limit, or what happens when no project is found.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource and grouping behavior front-loaded and the return shape stated second. Nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations and 83% parameter coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, and it does. The one gap is that all six parameters are optional and the auto-detection path (empty repo/owner, project_number optional) is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not ideal.

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 83%, so the schema already explains repo/owner auto-detection, item_limit semantics (default 25, max 100, 0 => summary_only), and summary_only token savings. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 ('View') and resource ('GitHub Project v2 as a Kanban board') plus the organizing axis (grouped by Status column). An agent can tell this read tool apart from the mutation siblings (move_kanban_item, add_kanban_item, delete_kanban_item), though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to the write kanban tools and that get_github_issues/list_projects are different surfaces, with nothing in the text confirming that.

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