wishlist_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the useful behavioral trait that the call is "free" and "Read" implies non-destructive behavior. It says nothing about the result shape, ordering, or whether the board can be empty, which are the remaining gaps.

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 single-sentence form is appropriately short and front-loaded, but the duplicated "(free) (free)" is wasted, sloppy text that undercuts the economy of a one-line description.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the agent will get back and that it costs nothing. A small gap remains around distinguishing it from the "wishlist" sibling.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter concerns exist.

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 clear verb ("Read") and resource ("request board"), and usefully decodes the jargon "wishlist" as "what other agents asked us to build." However, it does not distinguish this read operation from the sibling tool "wishlist," leaving the agent to infer which one mutates versus reads.

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 prefer this over "wishlist" or the related "jobs_get"/"jobs" tools, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must guess at the read-vs-write split purely from the name suffix.

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