Get sharing

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral caveats: pending invitees carry status 'invited', editors of a parent board are NOT listed here (a partial-result warning), and read_only_link is null until published. This is genuinely useful context an agent could otherwise get wrong; only return format/pagination detail is absent.

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 headline scoping sentence is front-loaded and the caveats are packed into a short second sentence with no filler. It is dense to the point of being slightly run-on (several clauses chained by semicolons), but every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates owner, editors, status values, read_only_link, comments_on_link, and downloads_on_link, plus the parent-editor exclusion. For a one-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Board ID from list_boards, or the board URL'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the high coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 opening line 'Who can open a board: owner, editors and the read-only link with its settings' clearly identifies the resource (sharing/permissions for a board) and what is returned. It is distinguishable from mutating siblings like invite_editor or publish_board by referencing them, though it never uses a direct verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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 reference to publish_board ('read_only_link is null until publish_board turns the link on') implies when this returns a populated link, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or comparison to get_board or the editor-management tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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