getMiroBoard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('retrieves') and that the response includes items, but it does not detail the return format, pagination, or any access requirements. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating what is returned ('detailed information including items'). It could be more explicit about what 'detailed information' entails, but the low complexity reduces the need for further elaboration.

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 schema description covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about boardId beyond what the schema already states, and the schema's description is adequate.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'specific Miro board', while the inclusion of 'including its items' adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listMiroBoards, which lists boards, and postMiroNote, which writes notes.

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 is for retrieving a single, specific board, which provides clear context for when to use it versus listing or creating. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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