List Columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only implies a safe read via 'List'. It discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether archived columns are included. For a simple enumeration tool with an output schema, the implicit read-only semantics cover most of the practical risk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the resource and scope come before any qualifier.

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?

The tool is one required parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on how to obtain the board identifier or whether results are paginated, which is minor for a tool this simple.

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 the schema already documents that 'board' accepts a widget_common_id, name, or ID. The description adds no extra meaning about that identifier or about ambiguity when a name collides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (columns) with the scope qualifier 'on a specific board', which is enough to distinguish it from write siblings like create_column, rename_column, and delete_column. It does not explicitly contrast with list_lanes or list_cards, which also enumerate board sub-resources, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_lanes (the other nested board collection) or get_board, nor does it state prerequisites. The only context is a restatement of the required parameter.

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