Workboard Get Objectives Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does: it discloses that all owned objectives are returned (not a filtered subset), mentions full pagination, and notes that workstreams and status_color appear only when present, which is useful variance information.

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?

Four short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded before the return-shape note and the two lookup hints. Every sentence carries information the agent can act on; nothing is restated from the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds the conditional-field and pagination nuance. The one loose end is that 'with full pagination' does not say whether all pages are fetched automatically or the caller must page through 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 the baseline is 3; however the description adds a resolution path the schema lacks, pointing to workboard_get_team_members_tool for name/email lookup. It does not add type, range, or format constraints beyond the schema's positive-integer/minimum-1 definition.

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+resource+scope: objectives owned by a given WorkBoard user, keyed by user ID. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling workboard_get_my_objectives_tool or workboard_get_objective_details_tool, so an agent must infer that this is the 'arbitrary user ID' variant.

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 concrete context for obtaining the required argument, naming two routes (workboard_get_user_tool for the current user, workboard_get_team_members_tool to resolve a name or email). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over workboard_get_my_objectives_tool, so no explicit exclusions.

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