get_board_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete contents of the response (firmware variant, version, board, MCU, API version), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about caching, connection requirements, or failure modes.

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 a colon-delimited field list; every token earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description's enumeration of returned fields is the key missing piece and it is supplied. The only gap is the absence of any routing hint against the overlapping get_fc_status sibling, and the description is written in French while the name and siblings are English.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The enumerated return fields are the only semantics available and they are stated.

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 (Retourne) and resource (l'identité du FC) and enumerates exactly what identity means: firmware variant (BTFL), version, board, MCU, API version. An agent knows precisely what data comes back, but nothing distinguishes it from the similar-sounding sibling get_fc_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus get_fc_status or get_advanced_config, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the field list.

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