workboard_get_objective_details_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return fields (objective name, progress, status, dates, key results) but does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation or state any side effects. For a read tool, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 three sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second details returns, third gives a helpful hint. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main return contents and prerequisites. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail every field. However, it lacks mention of error handling or status codes, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by instructing to get user_id from workboard_get_user_tool, clarifying the parameter's source beyond the schema's type and description.

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 it gets full details for a single objective including key results, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'objective details'. It distinguishes from siblings like workboard_get_objectives_tool by specifying 'single objective'.

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 a explicit prerequisite: use workboard_get_user_tool to get the user ID. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context implies it is for retrieving details of a specific objective, which is clear enough for an agent.

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