get_board

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does contribute one valuable operational fact: the call spends no credits, which tells an agent it is a cheap read. Beyond that it discloses nothing about error behavior for a missing board, whether the read is permission-gated, or whether pieces are paginated.

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 short sentences, the retrieval purpose front-loaded and the cost note second. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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 the description has to convey the return shape, and "and its pieces" only gestures at it without describing the pieces' fields or count. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the pricing note is the only real context added.

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 single required board_id is documented only by its name in the schema. The description's "one board" signals that board_id selects a single record but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance. Because the schema has just one self-evident string parameter, the practical cost of the gap is small.

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?

"Get one board and its pieces" names a specific verb (get), a specific resource (board), and the payload returned (its pieces), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_boards. It stops short of 5 only because it never states what a "piece" is or how the single-board scope relates to other retrieval siblings.

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 word "one" implies this is the single-record fetch versus the plural sibling list_boards, so an agent can infer usage. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what happens on an unknown board_id, and no named alternative such as get_run or get_run_assets.

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