workboard_get_workstreams_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the access-based filtering ('accessible to authenticated user') and exclusion of personal workstreams. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors like response format, pagination, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise, with three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get team workstreams') and includes all essential information 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 optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers what it does, what it returns, and what it excludes. Minor omission: no mention of pagination, but not critical for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds the word 'filter' for the ws_id parameter, which is a slight enhancement over the schema's 'fetch a specific workstream.' No significant added meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves team workstreams accessible to the user, distinguishing it from personal workstreams. It also notes optional filtering by ID, making the purpose specific and distinct from siblings like workboard_get_workstream_activities_tool.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving team workstreams and excludes personal workstreams, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like workboard_get_my_key_results_tool or workboard_get_team_workstreams_tool. It provides context but no direct comparisons.

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