whiteboard_get_thumbnail

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering safety, the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it reads the last saved screenshot rather than live content, warns that unedited boards may have no screenshot, and states that the response includes a screenshot version and freshness flag. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second efficiently adds the availability caveat and return contents.

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 read-only thumbnail tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, availability caveat, and return semantics. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools.

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 100%, so the single boardId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its default and the recommendation to specify it. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reads the real whiteboard screenshot saved at the last edit. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as whiteboard_export or whiteboard_inspect, which an agent might reasonably consider for related image or board data.

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 the tool's use case and adds a useful availability caveat: whiteboards that have not been opened for editing may lack a screenshot. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like whiteboard_export or whiteboard_inspect, leaving routing to inference.

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