get_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' correctly signals a non-mutating operation and the listed fields give a good picture of the payload, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the game must exist/be joined first, or behavior when game_id is null.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and then enumerates the payload. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 values need not be spelled out (the enumeration is partly redundant with it). The real gap is the undocumented optional game_id and the absence of any prerequisite or fallback behavior, which leaves the definition merely adequate for a one-parameter tool.

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% and the single parameter (game_id, nullable, default null) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain what happens when game_id is omitted, which is the most likely invocation.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a full enumeration of what the board view contains (FEN, diagram, side to move, check state, clocks, material, move history). It is clearly distinct from get_legal_moves or get_evaluation, though it overlaps somewhat with get_move_history and get_status without acknowledging that overlap.

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 never says when to call this versus siblings like get_status or get_move_history, nor does it explain the common case of omitting game_id. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the nullable parameter.

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