Get Board Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the arduino-cli dependency and the 'detailed metadata' scope, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether results are cached, require a network call, or depend on installed cores.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Get'), the object ('detailed board metadata'), and the scope ('specific FQBN'). There is no filler, jargon, or repetitive restatement of the tool title.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what it returns, for which board, and through which CLI. It could optionally mention prerequisites like having arduino-cli installed, but that gap is minor.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, fqbn, including a concrete example. The description's mention of FQBN adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('detailed board metadata') scoped to a particular FQBN and source (arduino-cli). This immediately differentiates it from sibling tools that list boards or search references rather than fetch details for one board.

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 phrase 'for a specific FQBN' gives a clear usage condition: call this when the agent already has or can derive the exact board identifier. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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