workboard_get_objectives_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It notes that all objectives are returned with full pagination and mentions optional fields like workstreams and status_color, which is helpful. It does not need to state read-only since the name 'get' implies it, but no contradictions.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds return details, and the third provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given a single well-described parameter, existence of an output schema, and clear prerequisites, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required input.

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?

The single parameter 'user_id' has a detailed schema description (positive integer, get from workboard_get_user_tool). The tool description repeats this guidance, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves objectives owned by a specific user via their user ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workboard_get_my_objectives_tool and workboard_get_user_key_results_tool by specifying the required user ID, and it directs the user to other tools for obtaining that ID.

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 explicit guidance on prerequisite steps: using workboard_get_user_tool to find the current user's ID and workboard_get_team_members_tool to resolve a name/email. It lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool, but the context implies alternatives exist for the current user's objectives.

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