get_board_details

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral expectations. It states the tool returns 'including its lists and cards', but the schema shows includeDetails defaults to false, meaning lists/cards are not included by default. This is misleading. The description also omits any mention of read-only safety, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, immediately states the core purpose, and avoids filler. The information is front-loaded and every clause contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should describe what the tool returns and under what conditions. It does not mention the response format, which fields are included, or the dependency of lists/cards on the includeDetails parameter. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, this falls short of necessary completeness.

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% for all four parameters, including descriptions for apiKey, token, boardId, and includeDetails. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify that includeDetails is required to receive lists/cards.

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 verb 'Get', targets a specific Trello board, and specifies the scope ('including its lists and cards'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards, get_lists, and trello_get_board_cards by presenting an aggregated view of board structure and content.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding board structure and content' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_lists or trello_get_board_cards. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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