planka_get_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly frames this as a read operation)Skip, which is adequate. However, it doesn't state anything explicit about side effects (there are none expected), data size, or whether the response nests cards. For a pure retrieval tool that is evidently read-only, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place — the first states the action, the second gives usage intent. No filler or repetition.

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 tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers what it returns (full project/board/list structure) and when to use it (before working with cards). It might briefly mention how this relates to planka_get_board, but for a discovery tool this is largely sufficient.

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% — the projectId parameter is fully described in the schema ('Optional: Get structure for a specific project only'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') plus a concrete resource ('full project/board/list structure') and names the navigation intent. It is clearly distinct from siblings like planka_get_board or planka_get_card, which retrieve narrower targets.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'before working with cards' to discover what projects/boards exist. It doesn't spell out when not to use it or how it compares to planka_get_board (which is a sibling), so it misses a small exclusion note, but the primary use case is clear.

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