Get board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is included (columns, stages, config, member count) but doesn't disclose potential absence of required parameters or return structure. This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It gives a clear action, parameter context with an example, and a concise list of returned content without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with strong annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It summarizes the return content, which is valuable given there is no output schema. A minor gap is that the schema lists no required parameters, while the description implies a slug is needed, but this is not a major omission in context.

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 100%, with both 'slug' and 'board_slug' already described in the schema. The description repeats the slug concept but doesn't add significant new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 gets detailed info for a single board by its URL slug. It specifies the resource (board) and the key parameter (URL slug), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_boards by focusing on a single board. The content list ('all columns, stages with their statuses, board config and member count') further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 when to use the tool (when you need detailed info for a specific board by its slug) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't reference sibling tools like list_boards for listing all boards, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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