Get board

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the remaining burden is return behavior, and the description delivers it: order is canvas top-to-bottom then Unsorted panel, notes arrive as plain text, drawings/lines/tables return type and ID only. That last detail is exactly the kind of surprise (missing content for certain card types) an agent needs disclosed.

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?

One dense but ordered paragraph: contents first, ordering second, per-type return semantics third, recursion fourth, optional flag last. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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 output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: entry-per-card shape (type, ID, content), ordering, plain-text notes, to-do done state and due date, column_id, labels, sub-board board_id. For a read tool whose readOnly behavior is already annotated, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a step above by explaining that include_comments yields 'comment threads with author, text and time' and that due_time is only present when set. It doesn't clarify board_id vs URL handling beyond the schema, but it meaningfully deepens what the flags produce.

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 and resource with scope: 'Every card on a board' with notes, links, images, files, to-do lists, columns and sub-boards. This is clearly distinguishable from list_boards (board enumeration) and the add_/edit_ siblings by the fact it returns a readout of an entire board's contents.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance for the recursive case ('Sub-boards appear as cards with their own board_id; call get_board again to open one') and explains that entries carry type/ID so 'other tools can point at it'. It does not name an alternative for locating a single card (e.g. search_boards) or say when a caller should skip this tool, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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