get_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if the board does not exist) or the return format, though for a simple getter, the primary behavior is transparent.

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 is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant information and effectively communicates the tool's scope and identification method in just a few words.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's function and when to call it. It would benefit from mentioning the return structure or clarifying what 'details' includes, but given the low complexity and complete parameter schema, it does not need extensive elaboration.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'board' as 'Board name or ID' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by name or ID' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 tool's purpose: fetching details for a specific board. The verb 'get' and resource 'board' are specific, and the phrase 'specific board' distinguishes this from the sibling list_boards tool, which presumably lists all boards. The identification method by name or ID is also specified.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need details for a particular board identified by name or ID) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It does not say 'use list_boards to enumerate all boards,' leaving the usage context inferred rather than clearly stated.

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