workboard_get_workstream_activities_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'workstream metadata plus every action item with descriptions, owners, due dates, comments, sub-actions, and attached files', clearly outlining the return content. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned, but as a read operation, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return data by listing key fields (metadata, action items with sub-fields). It provides a complete picture for a retrieval tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, with ws_id described as 'Workstream ID (positive integer)'. The description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get a workstream's full details including all action items', specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'workstream's full details with action items'. It distinguishes from siblings like workboard_get_workstreams_tool (which likely returns a list without details) and workboard_get_activity_tool (single activity), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving workstream details with actions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like workboard_get_workstreams_tool or workboard_get_activity_tool. No exclusions or context on when not to use it are provided.

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