adtk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists the available actions, it doesn't describe what these actions actually do (e.g., what 'list' returns, whether 'get' retrieves board configuration or status), nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with multiple actions and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the resource (Azure DevOps Kanban boards) and available actions. Every word earns its place with zero waste 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, multiple actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the actions return, how they differ, or provide any behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error or external documentation.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationships between parameters (e.g., how board_id relates to project_key) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool manages Azure DevOps Kanban boards and lists the specific actions available ('list', 'get', 'get_columns'), providing a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (like manage_work_items or manage_iterations) that might also interact with related Azure DevOps entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. With 13 sibling tools on the server, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear selection criteria for this specific board management tool.

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