zuuna_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the 200-card page cap, the cardsTruncated flag, and the nextCursor/cardsCursor continuation mechanism, which are important runtime behaviors not visible in the schema. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but 'Get' strongly implies it.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers pagination and identifier flexibility. Every clause adds useful 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a solid job explaining the response contents, pagination behavior, and accepted inputs. It could explicitly describe the overall response shape or error cases, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret pagination.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already says about board identifiers and the opaque cursor, though it adds the helpful clarification that the board key/title can be a card prefix. It does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('one board assembled') and clearly enumerates what is returned: ordered columns plus cards with key, title, column, priority, and type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zuuna_boards (plural list) and zuuna_card (single card) by scoping to a full board retrieval.

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?

It clearly describes what the tool retrieves and explains the pagination workflow with cardsCursor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one board' scope and identifier flexibility give an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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