get_board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the tool retrieves metadata and exposes the returned fields, which implies a non-mutating read, but it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, auth requirements, or error behavior when the board is not found. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: two sentences, no filler. The purpose and returned metadata are front-loaded, and the parameter clarification is placed on its own line, making it 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?

For a simple one-parameter get-metadata tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the accepted input format. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and edge-case behavior, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema only provides a bare 'board' string with no description, so this description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'board' accepts either a board id or a board name, which is essential, actionable semantic information that goes beyond the schema. It stops short of giving examples or format details, but for a single parameter this is strong coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('metadata for one board'), and it lists the specific metadata fields returned (name, description, URL, visibility, last activity). The phrase 'one board' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards and get_card.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a single board's metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_boards or other siblings. There is no when/when-not or alternative-tool guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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