get_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only restates the retrieval action and vague 'comprehensive details' without disclosing response format, potential authentication requirements, or any operational caveats. This is insufficient for a tool that has no output schema to clarify the return value.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description adequately conveys that the tool retrieves a single board's details, which is the core selection context. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not clarify the structure or extent of the returned information, and it lacks any mention of permissions or response shape, leaving some ambiguity for invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents boardId, fields, and detailLevel well. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that detailLevel affects comprehensiveness. This matches the baseline of 3 where schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action ('retrieve detailed information') and the resource ('a specific board by ID'). It explicitly emphasizes the tool's specificity to a single board, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_boards (plural) and get_board_lists.

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 phrase 'Use this when you need comprehensive details about a particular board' provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, missing the higher bar of a full when/when-not distinction.

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