Workboard Get Objective Details Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the scope of retrieval (objective metadata plus all key results with targets, progress, update schedules), but since an output schema exists, enumerating return fields is largely redundant rather than additive behavioral context.

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 purpose, then the return scope, then the prerequisite. Nothing is padded, though the return-field enumeration is partly duplicated by the output schema.

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 readOnlyHint covering safety, a full output schema covering returns, and 100% schema coverage on the two required params, the description supplies what an agent still needs: the objective-plus-key-results scope and the prerequisite lookup for user_id. Only sibling-selection guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the pointer to workboard_get_user_tool for user_id. The description repeats that pointer but adds no format, range, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Get full details for a single objective including all its key results.' The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the list-style siblings (workboard_get_objectives_tool, workboard_get_my_objectives_tool), but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 one concrete precondition ('Use workboard_get_user_tool (no arguments) to find the current user's ID'), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over workboard_get_objectives_tool or workboard_get_user_key_results_tool, which overlap in the key-results domain.

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