get_agile_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating the operation itself, such as response format or authentication requirements, so it contributes minimal additional value.

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 two lines: a clear one-line summary followed by a concise parameter breakdown. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 simple, with only two parameters and comprehensive annotations. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be explained. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from similar list-type tools, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Despite the schema_description_coverage of 0%, the description explicitly explains both parameters: 'name' can be a board name, ID, or URL, and 'instance' is an optional YouTrack instance. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds meaning beyond the raw type declarations.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'agile board details' and specifies three identifier types (name, ID, or URL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_agiles (which lists boards) and get_sprint_board (which is sprint-specific).

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you have a specific board name, ID, or URL to retrieve details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative (e.g., get_agiles for listing all boards) or provide exclusionary guidance.

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