get_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the object is 'saved' and looked up by id; it says nothing about not-found behavior, permission requirements, or whether the returned object includes work packages or query state.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the retrieval key is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing sibling differentiation and parameter detail rather than reflecting a deliberate minimal specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety and world assumptions. However, with a schema that gives no parameter description and multiple overlapping siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly and does not resolve the board vs. query vs. grid ambiguity.

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 0% for the single required parameter board_id, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'by id', without explaining the id format, where to obtain it (e.g., list_boards), or whether it accepts query or board identifiers. That is closer to restating the parameter name than adding meaning.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('saved OpenProject board/query') plus the lookup key ('by id'), so an agent can tell this is a single-item fetch rather than a list. It does not distinguish the tool from near-siblings like get_grid, get_view, or execute_query, and 'board/query' blurs whether this returns a board or a query object.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_boards, list_grids, get_view, or execute_query, nor any prerequisite about where a board_id comes from. The phrase 'saved ... by id' implies a retrieval scenario but gives no explicit conditions or alternatives.

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