Answer From Board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool cites clusters and requires a previously ingested board, but does not cover permissions, rate limits, or mutability.

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 with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints.

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?

With only 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose, but lacks details on how citations are delivered or any edge cases. 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning beyond parameter names. It only says the tool answers a question about a board, but does not clarify that boardId refers to a valid board from a prior ingest or that question is free-form text. The names are self-explanatory but the description adds minimal value.

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 answers a free-form question about a previously ingested board and cites clusters, distinguishing it from siblings like get_board_context (which likely provides raw context) and ingest_board (which is for ingestion).

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 the board must be previously ingested, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'previously ingested'.

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