Workboard Get Workstream Activities Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes workstream metadata and every action item with detailed fields, which is useful scope context, but it does not discuss volume, pagination, authentication, or rate limits.

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 core operation and then the returned contents. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant or vague padding.

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 simple one-parameter read operation, the readOnly annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. Its main omission is usage guidance relative to sibling retrieval tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

There is only one parameter, ws_id, and the schema description coverage is 100% with a clear positive-integer definition. The description adds no new syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: get a workstream's full details and all action items. It distinguishes the scope from basic activity retrieval by emphasizing full workstream detail, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as list_activities or get_activity.

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 retrieval of comprehensive workstream information, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools for narrower queries. An agent must infer this from the name and scope statement alone.

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