get_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description usefully adds that cards are excluded from the payload, but says nothing about payload size, cursor/offset continuation behavior, or what 'full' vs 'summary' detail yields.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the read front-loaded and the sibling routing second. 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-shape explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is meaningful but narrow: the undocumented 'detail' enum and the cursor parameters an agent must reuse across calls are never characterized in the description.

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 only 50%: text_offsets and section_offsets carry inline descriptions, but board_id and the detail enum ('summary' vs 'full') do not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — it never explains what detail selects or what the offset objects are for, leaving the enum semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') with an explicit retrieval scope ('board metadata, columns and lanes'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the card-listing sibling. An agent can tell it apart from list_board_cards, list_columns, and list_lanes without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes card retrieval to 'list_board_cards', giving a clear when-not-to-use boundary. It does not, however, state when an agent should prefer get_board over sibling reads like get_space or list_boards, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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