Get Board Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the operation returns text and clusters and requires a previously ingested board, but omits details on error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that places the key action and outputs first. Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return type (text summary + clusters) and the optional scoping. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detail in the description.

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 50% (only topic has a description). The description adds the phrase 'optionally scoped to a topic,' which clarifies the topic parameter's purpose. However, boardId lacks any description beyond being required, so the additional value is limited.

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 returns a text summary and clusters for a previously ingested board, with optional topic scoping. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like answer_from_board and ingest_board by specifying the output type and prerequisite.

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 tool should be used after a board has been ingested, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like answer_from_board. No direct guidance on prerequisites or context for selection is provided.

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