Get Tracker board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by disclosing what the returned board object contains (columns, estimation field, burndown calendar). It does not mention permissions or error behavior for unknown ids, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the returned contents, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the payload's main parts, and the single required parameter is unambiguous. It is complete for a simple read, though it omits behavior on an invalid or missing id.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as an integer identifier in the schema. The description's 'numeric id' and 'already know the board id' merely reinforce what the schema already states, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('look up a single agile board by its numeric id') and immediately scopes it with what the board contains (columns, estimation field, burndown calendar). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from list-style tools without opening another schema.

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?

It gives an explicit selection condition ('use this when you already know the board id') and routes the agent to concrete alternatives for browsing boards and enumerating sprints. Nothing about when to pick this tool over siblings is left to inference.

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