miro_get_board

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the board id is invalid.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id operation.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. A mention of authentication or board-not-found behavior would make it fully self-contained, but those gaps are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so `board_id` and `access_token` are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that `board_id` identifies a single board but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single Miro board by id.' The word 'single' helps distinguish it from list-style sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name `miro_list_boards` or otherwise route the agent between alternatives.

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?

'By id' implies this tool is used when a known board id is available, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as `miro_list_boards`. Usage is only weakly implied.

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