get_current_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one key piece: 'or a message if none is selected,' which informs the agent about an edge-case return. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two clear, short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the return behavior. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the notable 'no selection' edge case. It does not explain what 'currently selected' means or how it is set, but that is inferable from sibling tools like set_board. The output schema presumably defines the return structure, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing that would lower it, nor is any additional parameter context necessary.

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 action: 'Get details of the currently selected board.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'details of currently selected board' are specific and understandable. It distinguishes from get_board by the qualifier 'currently selected,' though it does not explicitly name the sibling, so it's not fully differentiating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_board or list_boards. It simply states what it does without explaining the context of 'currently selected' or when to prefer it over other retrieval tools. The usage is implied but not explicit.

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