Get board by id

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the return content in detail (groups, field definitions, labels), which adds value beyond the input schema. Although it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, it's inferred from 'Get'.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states primary function and output, second provides usage guidance. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, description sufficiently explains what the response contains (groups, field definitions, labels). It also gives critical usage context for creation/update workflows, making it fully helpful for an agent.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no parameter-specific detail but uses 'by id' to reinforce the boardId parameter. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Get a single board by id' and specifies what is included (structure, groups, field/column definitions, configurations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plaky_list_boards by indicating the depth of information returned.

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?

Description explicitly recommends reading this before creating or updating items to know available field keys and allowed values. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context implies when to use this versus list boards.

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