workspace_board

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the content scope of what comes back. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are truncated or how "recent" activity is bounded, nor anything about size or ordering. Useful content disclosure, but gaps remain.

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 front-loaded sentence with a verb, an object, and a colon-delimited content list. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter aggregate read with no annotations and no output schema, the description effectively doubles as a return-value summary. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on scope, freshness, or truncation of the board contents.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Render") with a specific resource ("the shared board") and enumerates its contents (agents, open tasks, files, recent activity). This implicitly distinguishes it from single-domain siblings such as bus_agents, bus_list_tasks, and workspace_list_files by making clear it is an aggregate view, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. However, the enumerated contents imply the intended use case: a single overview instead of several per-domain calls. That is implied rather than stated, so it stays at 3.

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