get_look_board

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload ('all its buttons and layout information'), which is the most useful behavioral fact here. It says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid ID, permissions, or payload size, so the disclosure is partial rather than thorough.

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, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with no redundant restatement of the name or title. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and what comes back. Only edge-case behavior (board not found, empty board) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 100% and the single lookBoardId parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Get') and resource ('look board') and clarifies scope with 'a specific look board', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_look_boards. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer separation from get_look, get_look_fixtures, and list_look_boards.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one board when you already have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_look_boards vs get_look_board), and no mention that the board must already exist.

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