Get recent board activity

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the return format (readable line plus raw action type), ordering (newest first), default days (7), and the scope of activity types. This significantly helps the agent predict output and side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded, packing purpose, examples, ordering, output format, default, use case, and prerequisite into two sentences. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (line per action, raw action type, newest first). It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a board-activity read tool with simple parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (including default for days and source for board_id). The description reiterates 'days defaults to 7' and 'board_id comes from list_boards' without adding new semantic meaning, so it earns the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool returns recent board activity, listing specific action types (cards created, moved, archived, commented on) and specifies order (newest first) and output format (one readable line plus raw action type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch current board state or perform mutations.

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 provides a clear use case ('good for what changed this week without diffing card state') and a prerequisite (board_id comes from list_boards). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different needs, but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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