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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: it returns up to 100 items per call, supports an opaque cursor for pagination, and explicitly states it returns paths only, never file contents. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core use case, and every sentence adds value: when to use, what it returns, pagination, and what to prefer instead. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and sibling tool context, the description is complete. It tells the agent how to find a board, what results to expect, how pagination works, and which alternative tools to prefer for specific needs.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both 'board' and 'cursor'. The description adds a small amount of operational context around the cursor ('pass the returned cursor only when more are needed') but does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific action and resource: listing the exact files in a known public board. It also clarifies what the tool returns (paths, extensions, sizes, roles) and distinguishes it from siblings like read_file, read_schematic, and get_bom.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('before read_file, or to show a project's layout'), when not to guess paths, and directs users to read_schematic for wiring and get_bom for parts. It also explains pagination usage with the cursor.

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