get_board_model

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

While no annotations are provided, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral constraint ('strictly byte-bounded') and a mode ('count-only summary'). However, it does not elaborate on error behavior, truncation, permissions, or side effects, leaving uncertainty about result handling.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description remains minimal for a tool with 20 enumerable sections. It does not clarify the impact of 'strictly byte-bounded' on large requests (e.g., truncation vs. error), and lacks guidance on pagination or section selection.

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's terms 'page' and 'count-only summary' loosely map to the `section` parameter but do not add detail beyond the existing schema descriptions for `limit`, `offset`, and `section`. With 75% schema coverage, the description adds marginal 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'one strictly byte-bounded PCB page or a count-only summary', making it clear this tool retrieves PCB board model data. It differentiates from sibling tools such as get_schematic_model by focusing on PCB pages and summary counts.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_schematic_model, query_objects, or get_object. It provides no exclusions or preferred contexts.

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