Read one brand project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, requires the kits:read scope, and returns 404 identically for nonexistent and non-owned projects, preventing existence probing. It also details the exact data returned, including share state fields.

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 concise despite its length; each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core purpose, then contrasts with a sibling, lists use cases, explains security behavior, and ends with scope/read-only note. No redundant phrases.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return contents and behavior. It also covers prerequisites (kits:read scope), ownership constraints, and use cases, making it fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% with a description 'Owned brand project id from list_brand_projects.' The tool description reinforces the ownership restriction but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and no extra syntactic or format guidance is provided.

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 reads one board in full, enumerating contents (variations, kits, brand name, domain, label, notes, share state, URLs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_brand_projects, which gives summaries and counts.

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?

It provides specific use cases: checking own work after attaching variations, answering 'what did we send them', and reading share state before changing it. It also explicitly names the alternative (list_brand_projects) and notes the tool returns 404 for non-owned projects, clarifying when not to use it for discovery.

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