get_board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates that the tool returns a dictionary with metadata and provides an example. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions (e.g., if no board is open).

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 extremely concise, with a single explanatory sentence, a clear returns line, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to fully document return values. However, it lacks guidance on tool selection among siblings and does not mention any prerequisites or error handling. For a zero-parameter tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the provided example fully illustrates usage. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds value through the example.

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 it gets board metadata and lists specific fields (title, date, company, revision, comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project or get_version, but could be more explicit about the scope of 'board' in context of the application.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_board_design_settings or get_project. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open board) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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