board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that — a WIP check — but it never explains what the check evaluates, what a violation looks like, or what the returned report contains, which matters since no output schema exists.

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: the primary output (per-column counts) comes first, with the secondary WIP check appended. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read-only aggregate this is close, but with no output schema the description should specify what the WIP check actually returns (limits, thresholds, violation list). As written, an agent knows the shape of half the response only.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add, and it correctly implies the tool operates on the whole board with no filtering.

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 names a specific resource (kanban columns) and states exactly what it produces: a count of tasks per status plus a WIP check. This aggregation framing implicitly distinguishes it from the task-level siblings like list_tasks, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the overview tool to call when it wants per-status totals rather than individual tasks. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and nothing about ordering relative to list_tasks.

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