get_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get details') but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. However, for a simple retrieval tool, the description adequately conveys the main behavior without contradictions. The lack of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap, not a severe one.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output detail ('including its columns'). There is no redundancy or extra text, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple get tool. It indicates the primary purpose and even highlights that columns are included in the response. The presence of an output schema means return format details are covered elsewhere. The single parameter is documented. While it doesn't explicitly address sibling distinctions, the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 full coverage (100%) for the single parameter, with a description stating 'The board's widget_common_id'. The main description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond referencing a 'specific board'. Since schema already explains the parameter sufficiently, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific board', including that columns are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards (which lists all boards) and get_current_board (which targets a specific current board). The 'specific' qualifier and ID parameter make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions like 'use when you have a board ID' or exclusions like 'for simple board listing, use list_boards'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is the preferred choice. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the parameter and sibling names.

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