Open the board

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key real-world effect: a browser window is opened on the user's machine (a side effect on the user's environment, consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and a URL is returned. Auth requirements and failure modes are unstated, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending with the return value. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect, and the return value (URL). Missing only marginal detail such as behavior when no board exists or whether the browser must be available, which slightly limits 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the correct baseline of 4; there is nothing to disambiguate and the description doesn't waste words on inputs.

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?

A specific verb (open) and resource (sketch board) with a clear effect: launch it in the user's browser and return the URL. That implicitly separates it from get_board/get_board_image, which fetch board data rather than opening a UI, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never states when to use this instead of get_board or get_board_image, nor any precondition (e.g., board must exist, user must have a session). The choice among the three board-related siblings is left entirely to inference.

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