Open the board (UI)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds useful context by stating the output is a self-contained HTML document and prescribing artifact management steps. No behavioral contradictions.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary usage context. The additional instructions could be more concise, but the structure is clear and logical.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output format, intended use cases, and post-usage steps. It covers the full context needed for an agent to invoke the tool 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score is 4 as per guidelines. The description adds no additional parameter information, but none is needed.

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 it returns the FeatureBoard board UI as an HTML document. It distinguishes from alternatives by explicitly saying 'Do NOT hand-write your own board' and identifies it as the method to satisfy natural-language requests to see the board.

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 explicit when-to-use (any natural-language request to see the board) and what not to do (not hand-write). It also gives specific instructions on handling the output (write to file, create/update artifact). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to other board-related sibling tools, though the context is clear.

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