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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior context about the empty-list case and the guaranteed AGENTS.md root entry. It stops short of saying anything about ordering or size limits, but for a simple list operation this is solid added value.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the return-value caveat second. The parenthetical 'multi-file-ready prompt store' is slightly jargon-heavy but does real explanatory work.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive list operation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the notable empty-state semantics. Ordering, pagination, and file metadata are unstated but the annotations plus the v1 caveat make the call safe and correct.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents board_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the board's named files') and parenthetically identifies what those files are (the multi-file-ready prompt store). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_board_prompt by talking about a set of files rather than one prompt, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_board_prompt or update_board_file, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual sentence describes what the return value means, not when to reach for the tool.

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