analyze_board_health

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

The description discloses an importante behavior: it returns counts and offending cards rather than a verdict, and calls out handling of small boards. However, because no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and still does not mention read-only status, side effects, or error behavior.

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 terse sentences carry signal: the first lists the assessment dimenions, the second clarifies output shape and interpretive nuance. No filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 read-only analysis tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it names inputs dimenions and output nature. The main gap is parameter semantics for stale_after_days, and there is no guidance about required input form or sibling selection, leaving the agent to infer important invocation details.

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 0%, but the description does not explain the board parameter or stale_after_days. The title 'Stale After Days' hints at its purpose, but the description never connects it to the 'staled cards' metric, and does not clarify default semantics or units.

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 uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('a board') and lists concrete metrics: per-list load, overdue cards, unassned work, staled cards. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from detect_bottlenecks or generate_standup_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of a sibling like detect_bottlenecks or list_cards. The instruction 'Read the numbers and say what they imply' is about post-processing output, not about when to invoke the tool.

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