planka_get_board

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and states what is returned, but it does not disclose any further behavioral details such as response structure or how includeTaskCounts affects results.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope. The second sentence adds a clear usage instruction without redundancy, so every sentence earns its place.

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 board-fetching tool with one required parameter and one documented optional parameter, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned, and the schema covers parameter semantics. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned content.

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%, so the parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('a board') with an explicit scope: all its lists, cards, and labels. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_card or get_comments.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this when you want to see everything on a board. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use is obvious and unambiguous.

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