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, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not say the operation is read-only, whether the board must exist, whether it needs authentication or team membership, or what an error looks like for an unknown boardId.

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 short phrase with no filler and the core verb-resource pair front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required ID parameter, the description leaves nearly everything an agent needs unstated. A single-sentence lookup tool can be simple, but this one is under-specified even for that.

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% for the single required boardId parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining that it is the board's UUID identifier or where to obtain one. The schema only supplies type and format.

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?

"Get an Umami board" names a verb (get) and a resource (board), so the basic operation is inferable. But it gives no scope detail and does nothing to distinguish it from the many sibling board tools (list_boards, get_team, list_team_boards), nor does it indicate retrieval is by ID rather than by listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of an alternative such as list_boards, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer from the sibling names alone that this is the single-board lookup by ID.

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