my_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the board mirrors the reader's browser state and may be empty if the reader hasn't opened AlphaDesk lately, and it previews the response shape (active symbol plus quotes). It could add refresh or staleness details, but it already provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 three sentences with no filler, and it front-loads the core definition before use-case guidance and the empty-results caveat. The parenthetical 'the strip across the top of AlphaDesk' is slightly ornate but useful for clarifying what 'board' means.

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, no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, indicates what data is returned, and warns about the empty case. The term 'active one' is not fully defined, but not enough to materially impair an agent's ability 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 the input schema is empty, so there is nothing the description needs to explain. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies; no parameter documentation gap exists.

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 identifies the resource (the reader's followed symbols/board) and what it contains (the active symbol and a quote for each). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the phrase 'Use it for "my stocks", "my watchlist"' makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and helps distinguish it from siblings like index_board or quote.

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 gives concrete, natural-language triggers for when to call this tool: 'my stocks', 'my watchlist', and 'how is my board doing'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter personal-board tool, this level of guidance is clear and sufficient.

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