swu_view_board

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'View' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it requires an active game session, or what happens if the session does not exist. It provides some transparency but falls short of fully disclosing behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It wastes no words and front-loads the key information.

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?

The tool has an output schema that presumably documents the return structure, so that aspect is covered. However, the description lacks usage context—when to call this vs. swu_get_game_state, and it doesn't explain the session_id linkage. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but not complete.

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 description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how to target a specific game session, especially since the parameter is optional and defaults to 'default'. The omission leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's role.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as viewing the current board state and enumerates the specific components included (ground, space, leaders, bases, resources), distinguishing it from sibling tools like swu_view_hand which focuses on the hand.

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 vs alternatives like swu_get_game_state or swu_view_hand. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active game) or exclusions.

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