figjam_get_board_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the returned data and the filter-to-empty-set behavior, which is genuine value. It omits the operational traits that matter for a read tool: the 500-node default cap and truncation behavior (only in schema), permission/auth requirements, and whether it fails on non-FigJam files.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first sentence, then use cases, then filtering. Three tight blocks with zero filler and no repetition.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the return payload. It is nearly complete, missing only permission/error context that the absent annotations would otherwise have covered.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them ("Omit for everything"). The one addition is a concrete example value (["STICKY"]), which is mildly helpful but marginal over the enum in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Read all content from a FigJam board") followed by an enumeration of what comes back (stickies, shapes, connectors, tables, code blocks, sections with text and positions). That clearly separates it from the figjam_create_* siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from figjam_get_connections, which covers overlapping connector/relationship data.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases (understand a board before modifying it; extract structured data from collaborative sessions) and explains when to pass nodeTypes versus omitting it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so an agent must still infer that figjam_get_connections is the right pick for relationship-only reads.

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