get_board_schema

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying what the response contains: full column schema with ids, names, types, and settings. It also signals a safe read operation suitable as a prerequisite. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but for a read-only getter this is adequately transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and then adds a concise workflow directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content and the surrounding workflow intent. The main gap is parameter sourcing guidance, but the tool is simple enough that the description remains largely complete.

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 for parameter meaning, but it never explains projectId or boardId, where to find them, or how they relate to sibling tools like list_projects and list_boards. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw property names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a board with its full column schema (ids, names, types, settings).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards by emphasizing the column-schema detail rather than mere board listing. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Call this before creating items with cells.' This tells the agent when this tool fits in a workflow. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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