read_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses a non-obvious trait: 'Network- and token-expensive,' and offers a mitigation strategy. It also documents filtering state/milestone and pagination via limit/offset, giving an agent useful expectations beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a focused Args block, and a cost warning. Every sentence adds value, and the key warning is prominently placed at the end.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors an agent needs: what is returned, how to filter, pagination, and a cost warning. It does not explain the exact structure of 'full content' or the meaning of the required project/column IDs, but these are partially inferable from the schema and sibling tool names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for state, milestone, limit, and offset, including allowed values and defaults, but does not describe owner, repo, project_id, or column_id. These four required parameters are left to be inferred from their names, so compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full content of every card in a column.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings such as read_card, which targets a single card. The resource is clear and the action is concrete.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use it: 'Avoid unless asked or necessary' and advises using limit/offset to control cost. It gives clear context, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or specify conditions under which a sibling would be preferred.

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