get_board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Returns metadata' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and listing the returned fields gives real substance; however, it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid board_id, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource and its returned fields come first, and the usage guidance follows, which is the correct front-loading for a lookup tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so listing the returned metadata fields in the description is genuinely load-bearing. That covers the main gap; only failure-mode and permission context are absent, which is minor for a single-parameter read.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the URL-extraction format. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('metadata about a Miro board') and enumerates exactly what metadata: name, description, creation date, owner, dimensions. This clearly separates it from every sibling tool, all of which operate on board items rather than on the board itself.

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?

Explicitly says to call it 'at the start of a session to confirm you are working on the correct board before reading or modifying content,' which gives a concrete trigger point and a rationale. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it falls just under the top band.

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