get_board_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. The verb 'summarize' implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any authorization needs or rate limits. The disclosure is minimal but consistent with the tool's apparent purpose.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and key aspects it summarizes. Every word is informative, and no extraneous content exists.

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 description lists what the tool summarizes, but given the absence of an output schema and the single required parameter, it lacks detail on return format and input semantics. For a simple query tool, it is partially adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'project' parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what value to provide for the required input, leaving it to guess that 'project' is a board identifier.

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 verb 'summarize' and resource 'board', listing specific aspects (copper layers, thickness, nets, footprints, extents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_board_stackup' or 'list_footprints', which focus on narrower scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the list of aspects summarized.

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