Get a board layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing what the response contains (groups, columns, label values) and the rationale for calling it before mutations. This goes beyond just restating the annotation hints, though it doesn't mention caching behavior (which is in the schema description) or other edge cases.

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 two sentences: the first states the function and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the essential purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only retrieval tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned (groups, columns, labels), the scope (one board), and when to invoke it. Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return content without needing to enumerate every field.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('refresh' and 'board_id') fully documented. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, so it relies on the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 returns 'the groups and the columns of one board' with the labels for status and dropdown columns, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like monday_list_boards (which lists boards) and monday_get_items (which gets items), and emphasizes it operates on a single 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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this before you create or change an item,' and explains why ('a column value must match its column type'). This gives clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or identify alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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