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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: v1 semantics, that AGENTS.md is returned once a prompt is set, and what an empty list signifies. It omits read/write nature and permission requirements, leaving notable gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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 compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and an interpretive note appended. No filler, though the quoted 'AGENTS.md' detail sits somewhat awkwardly.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the return shape (AGENTS.md presence, empty-list meaning) and the v1 caveat. It is largely sufficient, though it could say more about ordering or when files other than the root appear.

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 (board_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the board's named files') and adds a clarifying gloss ('the multi-file-ready prompt store'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the related sibling get_board_prompt or explain why a listing exists separately from fetching a prompt.

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 implies usage by explaining what an empty result means ('empty list means no prompt/files yet'), which helps an agent interpret the call. It offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never routes the agent against get_board_prompt or update_board_file.

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