get_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does explicitly declare 'Read-only,' which is the key safety trait. However, it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements or the scope of 'public-facing' data exposure, which matters for a board-metadata call.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and the key read-only trait, followed by the alternative. No filler.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema already defining the return shape, the description only needs to state purpose and scope, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of returned fields is bonus context rather than a substitute for missing param docs.

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+resource ('Get job board metadata') and enumerates the returned fields (name, content, departments, offices), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It differentiates from list_jobs, but not from the many other board-prefixed siblings (get_board_job, list_board_departments, get_board_office, etc.), leaving some ambiguity in a dense sibling set.

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 frames this as the public-facing board metadata tool and names the alternative for the internal case ('For internal job management, use list_jobs instead'). Clear context and one concrete alternative, though it doesn't mention when to prefer the board-specific siblings like get_board_department.

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