Get Full Board Data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the crucial behavioral context that the tool is exclusively triggered by UI components, beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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 imperative sentence that effectively conveys the key restriction. It is concise, but could be structured with bullet points for clarity. The urgency of the prohibition justifies brevity.

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?

Given that the tool is explicitly forbidden for agent use, the description is complete in conveying that it should not be called. However, it does not describe return value or behavior when called, which would be necessary if the agent were allowed to use it. The lack of output schema is not compensated.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (boardId, filters, filtersOperator). The tool description does not add further parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for internal UI use only, clearly distinguishing it from other board-related tools that the agent should use instead. The purpose is unambiguous: it provides full board data but is not for agent invocation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to never call the tool directly, but does not mention alternative tools like get_board_items_page or get_board_info that could serve similar purposes. The strong prohibition is clear but lacks cross-references.

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