get_board_schema

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description simply says 'Get a board' without adding side-effect context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits). Since annotations cover the main behavioral trait, a middle score is appropriate.

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 concise, two sentences, and clearly structured. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a practical note. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 operation with just two parameters, the description covers the essential context: what is retrieved and why it is used. It does not specify return format, but no output schema exists, and the use case is clear. Minor omission of edge-case guidance prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both boardId and projectId. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get a board' and specifies the detailed content: 'full column schema (ids, names, types, settings)'. It also distinguishes its purpose from list_boards by focusing on schema retrieval, and the use case 'before creating items with cells' reinforces its intent.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Call this before creating items with cells.' This gives clear situational guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The instruction is specific and actionable, earning a high score.

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