amulen_get_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it. The description does add genuine domain context by naming the aggregate fields returned (counts per state, hour budget with four components), which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about failure behavior, permissions, or whether 'spent'/'scheduled' are computed live.

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 no filler; the parenthetical gloss on 'bolsa de horas' is useful disambiguation rather than padding. The only cost is that brevity here leaves the parameter story untold.

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 two-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload (counts per state, budget breakdown) but leaves the inputs and error/permission behavior undocumented. It is complete enough to justify calling it, not complete enough to call it confidently with unfamiliar slug formats.

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 both parameters are bare strings, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them — yet it never mentions either slug. An agent cannot tell whether project_slug and board_slug are human-readable slugs, IDs, or a hierarchical path, nor whether the project scope is mandatory or merely a lookup hint.

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+resource ("Get a board") and enumerates the payload: task counts per state plus an hour budget broken into total, spent, scheduled and available. That is far more informative than a generic 'get' and lets an agent distinguish it from list-style siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with amulen_list_boards or amulen_get_project.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular 'a board' plus the required project_slug/board_slug pair suggests single-board retrieval, which informally separates it from amulen_list_boards. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what to do when the board is missing or when a summary is not needed.

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