pio_board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only lookup ('Full details for one board id') and the scope of data returned. It does not mention error behavior for invalid board IDs, but for a simple info-lookup tool this is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the resource and fields, followed by a practical use case. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the purpose, the key data returned, and a use case. It does not explain how to discover valid board_id values, but the sibling pio_list_boards likely covers that, and the output schema fills in return details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that board_id identifies a single board and that the output includes memory sizes, frameworks, etc. However, it does not specify the format of board_id (e.g., PlatformIO board ID like 'nodemcuv2') or where to find valid IDs. The description adds meaning but leaves the ID format implicit.

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 full details') and resource ('one board id'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (MCU, clock, RAM/flash sizes, frameworks, connectivity, debug probes). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pio_list_boards (which lists boards) and pio_system_info (which is about the system, not a board).

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?

The description gives a clear use case: 'Use it to learn memory limits before writing code.' This implies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the distinction obvious (e.g., pio_list_boards for enumerating boards).

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