get_board_frames

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.