get_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens for a non-existent/orphaned board id, whether authentication or workspace context is required, or the return shape beyond the output schema. The description adds only the 'saved' qualifier, which is thin behavioral context.

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 clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simplicity (one self-descriptive parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently orients an agent. It lacks some behavioral nuance (e.g., 404 behavior), but for a basic read operation, it is reasonably complete within the provided context.

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%, but there is only one parameter (board_id) whose purpose is self-explanatory from its name and type. The description's 'by id' reinforces the parameter role but adds no format, constraint, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. A baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('saved OpenProject board/query') and identifies the lookup key ('by id'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_boards and list_grids by indicating retrieval of a single saved entity rather than enumeration.

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 context ('saved... by id' suggests retrieving a pre-existing board), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. For a simple getter, the implied usage is adequate but not elaborated.

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