Read a board

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: what the payload contains, that each item carries the id the editing tools require, and that open comments are only partial, with list_comments as the escape hatch. "Read-only" merely restates readOnlyHint=true rather than adding new information, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, the read-only confirmation plus id contract, then the routing rules. The payoff and the sibling pointers are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the content categories and the id contract needed by editing tools. For a two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the "open" sentinel and the markdown/json tradeoff. The description only implies the default outline format ("indented outlines") and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 and resource ("Read a whole board") and enumerates exactly what comes back: mind maps as indented outlines, notes, shapes, tables, charts, connectors, images, open comments. This clearly separates it from list_boards (enumeration), view_images (image content) and list_comments (threads).

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Call it before changing a board you have not read in this conversation") and names two alternatives with the condition that selects them: view_images for what images show, list_comments for full comment threads. An agent needs no inference to choose correctly.

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