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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details about' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what details are returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid board IDs. The description is too vague about the actual behavior.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, the response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the lack of structured information elsewhere, the description should provide more complete context about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'board_id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the MIRO board'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get details about') and resource ('a specific MIRO board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_boards' (which presumably lists multiple boards) or 'get_board_frames'/'get_board_items' (which get specific components of boards).

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this retrieves details for a single board (versus 'list_boards' for multiple boards) or that it returns general board metadata (versus 'get_board_frames'/'get_board_items' for specific components). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all frames' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid board IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (retrieving content from a board), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what frames are, the format of returned data, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'board_id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain what a 'frame' is or how the board_id relates to the retrieval, so it doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema coverage.

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 action ('Get all frames') and resource ('from a MIRO board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_board_items' or 'search_board_content' which might also retrieve board content, leaving some ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_board_items' and 'search_board_content' that might retrieve similar content, there's no indication of whether this is for frames specifically, what frames are, or when to choose this over other tools. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves items but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by limit parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or return format. This is inadequate for a read operation with parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all items from a MIRO board') with clarifying parenthetical ('widgets'). There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'items' entail (e.g., structure, fields), how results are returned (e.g., list format), or handling of large datasets beyond the limit parameter. For a tool with 3 parameters and retrieval complexity, more context is needed.

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 in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of 'all items', which aligns with the schema but doesn't compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get all items') and resource ('from a MIRO board'), specifying that items are widgets. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_board' (board metadata) and 'list_boards' (multiple boards), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_board_frames' (specific item type) or 'search_board_content' (filtered search).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_board_frames' (for frames only) or 'search_board_content' (for content-based filtering). The description implies it retrieves all items, but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('List all... accessible') but doesn't disclose traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or return format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's function ('List all MIRO boards accessible to the user') with zero redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: no information on return values (e.g., board list structure), error cases, authentication needs, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a list tool with no structured support, the description should provide more operational guidance.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', the schema fully documents its type, description, and default value. The description doesn't compensate or add context about parameter usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does 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 verb ('List') and resource ('MIRO boards'), specifying scope ('all... accessible to the user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_board' (singular) and 'search_board_content' (filtered search) by emphasizing comprehensive listing without filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'get_board_frames' or 'get_board_items', which target specific board components rather than board lists.

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 usage for retrieving accessible boards, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'search_board_content' for filtered searches. The context is clear but lacks proactive guidance for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's read-only or destructive. This is a significant gap for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation by an agent.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters ('board_id' and 'query') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text search, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra syntax or format details, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'search' and resource 'text content across all items in a MIRO board', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_board_items' or 'list_boards', which might also involve board content retrieval, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios for searching text versus using other tools for board metadata or items, leaving the agent without explicit usage context or exclusions.

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