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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds complementary behavior: returns up to 100 items, supports a cursor for pagination, returns metadata only and never file contents. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: use case, output shape, pagination, content boundary, and routing to alternatives. The most important scoping information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the safe/idempotent profile covered by annotations, and simple parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly, including exclusions and pagination behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains board references, cursor usage, and how to find boards. The description reinforces 'known public board' and 'only pass cursor when more are needed,' but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: list the exact files in a known public board. It clearly distinguishes the tool from read_schematic, read_pcb, and get_bom by explaining that this tool returns paths, not contents, and that other tools should be used for those concerns.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool ('before read_file' and 'to show a project's layout') and names specific alternatives for other needs. It also warns against guessing paths, which is actionable routing guidance for an agent.

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