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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or handles errors. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool in a context with auth-related siblings.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a read operation in a system with authentication and multiple board-related tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided), doesn't address auth requirements implied by sibling tools, and offers minimal behavioral context. This is inadequate for guiding an agent effectively in this environment.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'boardId' clearly documented as 'The unique identifier of the board/mural'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific board (mural)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-mural-widget' or 'list-room-boards', which would require a 5.

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 like 'list-room-boards' or 'get-mural-widget'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing authentication or specific scopes, which is a significant gap given the sibling tools include auth-related ones like 'check-user-scopes'.

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