board_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait - the pitfall list is ordered by failure rate - and states that a data source is reported. However it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, and gives no hints on caching, name-resolution failure behavior, or cost, which for a zero-annotation tool leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then the usage trigger. No filler; every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description correctly focuses on scope, examples, and timing. For a single-parameter read lookup with no annotations, the only remaining gap is that valid name values are only illustrated, not bounded (the description could have pointed to board_list for discovery).

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% and the single 'name' property has no schema description, so the description must compensate and largely does by supplying concrete example values ('bluepill', 'blackpill_f411') that reveal the expected identifier style. It stops short of describing the full naming convention or where valid names come from.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('输出指定开发板的板级知识') and itemizes what that knowledge contains: onboard peripherals and their occupied pins, a board-level pitfall list sorted by failure rate, power-supply notes, and the data source. An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the obvious neighbor board_list (which presumably enumerates the names this tool accepts).

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 a clear usage trigger: consult this before hardware selection or before troubleshooting board-level pitfalls. It does not name alternatives (e.g. board_list for discovery, pinmap_get for pin detail) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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