board_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral load. It communicates that this is a read of a known board, but doesn't state safety/read-only nature explicitly, permissions required, or response shape, leaving gaps that annotations would normally cover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (details, prefs, label names, pre-summary context) contributes. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 two well-documented params and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient, but the absence of annotations means the description could do more to characterize the read behavior and what the returned 'preferences' and 'label names' represent. It's minimum-viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both boardId and fields are fully documented in the schema, including the default field list. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names both the verb (get) and the concrete resources returned — board details, preferences, and label names — for a known board. It's clear what the tool fetches, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like board_field_get or board_labels.

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?

It specifies the condition to use it ('before listing or summarizing' a known board), giving a clear operational context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer board_field_get for a single field), so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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