get_board_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the data comes from the active backend unless one is named, which tells the agent the result is context-dependent. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it is cheap or expensive, or what happens if the board is closed or no backend is available.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the payload is stated before the backend caveat. The RST-style double-backtick markup around backend is an artifact that slightly hurts readability but costs no length.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and a crowded field of near-duplicate board-info siblings, the description should at minimum clarify read-only status and how it differs from proj_get_board_info and pcb_get_board_statistics.

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 0% and the single backend parameter has no description in the schema. The prose compensates partially by implying that omitting backend means the active backend is used, but it gives no hint about valid values, accepted naming, or failure modes for an unknown backend name.

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 and payload: object counts plus a net-class summary for the open board. That is specific enough for an agent to know what comes back, but it draws no boundary against close siblings such as proj_get_board_info, pcb_get_board_statistics, or pcb_get_fab_stats, all of which plausibly return similar 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many board-statistics siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent content is the parenthetical about the backend parameter, which is about invocation, not selection.

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