fetch_current

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

The description adds the specific behavioral detail that the tool 'may access the upstream website but never persists a history capture.' This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by disclosing the non-persistence side effect, which is valuable for understanding the tool's impact.

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, containing two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add one critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 presence of rich annotations and an output schema reduces the need for the description to cover safety and return values. The description adds the key non-persistence distinction, but the lack of parameter guidance and vague 'board' terminology leave moderate gaps in fully understanding the tool's invocation requirements.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the four parameters (site, limit, params, path_type). Since the schema has zero descriptions, the agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is inadequate for the ambiguous 'params' and 'path_type' fields.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a current board.' The word 'current' distinguishes it from sibling history tools like query_history and search_history, making the tool's role explicit.

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 usage for current data (as opposed to historical) by stating it 'never persists a history capture,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide direct when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The distinction from history tools is suggested rather than stated.

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