get-board

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

Adds value beyond annotations by disclosing it's 'cheapest' (cost implication) and 'results are cached'. Annotations already indicate safe read and open world, but description enriches with performance traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, cheapest way, caching. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains what is returned (lanes and columns). Also provides caching and cost context. For a simple read tool with robust annotations, this is fully adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond schema descriptions; it only mentions output content (lanes and columns). No need to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'single Favro board', identifier 'widgetCommonId', and includes details about lanes and columns. Distinguishes from siblings like list-boards and list-columns by positioning it as the cheapest way to get column layout.

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?

Explicitly says 'cheapest way to learn a board's column layout before listing cards', guiding agents to use this when needing column layout prior to list-cards. Also mentions caching. However, lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied context.

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