structure_getBoard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about the return format and implies performance characteristics ('fast path'), plus a recommendation for large boards. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Fast path', zero wasted words. The key purpose and alternative are stated efficiently.

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 read-only tool with safe annotations and a simple output shape (nested tree), the description provides sufficient context. It names the return fields and points to the large-board alternative, though no output schema exists. Adequate for a fast-path read tool.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description's mention of 'key/summary/status/issuetype' aligns with the schema's default attribute description, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('Structure Board'), and details the output format ('nested tree with key/summary/status/issuetype (forest + values)'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool structure_getBoardToFile, making its unique purpose clear.

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 explicitly states this is the 'fast path' and directs users to use structure_getBoardToFile for large boards, providing a clear alternative. It does not list explicit exclusions but the context is sufficient for selection.

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