miro_get_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds the non-obvious gate "Requires user approval" and spells out the returned field set. It stops short of mentioning pagination or per-call limits beyond the 1-50 cap already in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences: capability first, return shape second, routing plus approval gate last. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the item fields returned. With 100% schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and the approval requirement stated, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 board_id (id after /app/board/), item_ids (comma-separated, 1-50) and reason are already fully documented. The description only restates "by their ids" and adds no format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Read specific items of one Miro board by their ids" gives a concrete verb, resource, and scope (specific, id-targeted, single board), and the following sentence enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from miro_list_items (all items) without opening either schema.

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 routes explicitly: use miro_list_items to obtain the ids, miro_update_items to mutate them, so this tool is the read-by-id path in a three-tool workflow. Prerequisite and alternative are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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