读取白板

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful behavioral cue that this is the ID-discovery step preceding mutation, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit) or result shape, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the action-oriented trigger. No filler and every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented limit/pagination parameter, which leaves a small gap for a tool returning potentially large element lists.

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 67%: pageId and boardId carry their own descriptions, but limit is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of paging, page scoping, or board selection), so it does not compensate for the gap – baseline 3.

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 names a concrete resource set – pages, element IDs, positions, sizes, colors, and text – so an agent can tell this is the element/page inspector rather than a board lister like whiteboard_list or an image fetcher like whiteboard_get_thumbnail. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the enumerated fields make the distinction inferable.

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?

"修改前先调用此工具取得准确 ID" gives an explicit triggering condition: call before any modification to obtain accurate IDs, which naturally routes the agent here ahead of update_elements/delete_elements/align_elements. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives are named, keeping it short of a 5.

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