List tasks of a board

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the grouping/ordering behavior, subtask nesting, the default filtering of completed tasks, the config-file default board, and a prompt-injection warning about user-authored content. That last point is a security-relevant disclosure an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: output shape first, then filtering default, then alternative routing, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and nothing is repeated.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (per-task fields, subtask nesting, column grouping). Combined with the injection warning and default-board note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description's 'completed says otherwise' merely restates the schema default. The only marginal addition is that the default board is 'the first board of .weeek.json', which is slightly more concrete than the schema's 'configured board'. 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 and resource ('Lists tasks of a board grouped by columns, in board order') and immediately defines the output shape (one short line per task with id, title, priority, due date, assignees, tags, file count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling weeek_get_task, which is named explicitly for single-task detail.

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?

Names the alternative (weeek_get_task) and the condition that selects it ('for the description, comments and attachments of one task'). Default behaviors are also stated (board defaults to first board of .weeek.json, completed hidden by default). No explicit when-not-to-use list, but routing is clear.

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