structure_getBoardToFile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds critical behavioral details: it writes JSON to a local file and returns only path + meta to avoid cluttering chat. This explains the side effect and the response behavior, which goes beyond what annotations indicate.

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, front-loaded with the relationship to structure_getBoard, then the key difference and return behavior. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the return type (path + meta) and the main use case (large boards). By referencing structure_getBoard, it leverages existing documentation for the other parameters. However, it does not clarify the file format or behavior on overwrite, leaving a minor gap for a file-writing 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 coverage is 50% (only filePath, structureId, and forestSpec have descriptions), and the tool description itself does not explain any parameter. Since this is a variant of structure_getBoard, some parameter meaning might be inferred, but the description does not help with flat, attributes, or includeGenerators. At 50% coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving agents guessing about several parameters.

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 'Same as structure_getBoard but writes JSON to a local file', identifying both the action (writes JSON to file) and the specific resource (board data). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool structure_getBoard by explicitly noting the file-writing difference and that it returns path + meta instead of the full tree.

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 gives a direct usage context: 'for large boards', indicating when this tool is preferable. It also implies the alternative structure_getBoard for cases where file output is not needed, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use structure_getBoard when you don't need a file'. This is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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