get_board_items

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.