hires_list_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists boards with metadata, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether special permissions are needed, or what scope of data is returned. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds usage context. There is zero redundancy or wasted words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat complete: it covers purpose and usage. However, it fails to specify what 'metadata' is returned, and it does not clarify how this tool relates to similar ones like hires_list_job_boards. Thus, there are clear gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; it appropriately avoids commenting on nonexistent parameters.

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 tool's function: 'List available publishing boards with metadata.' It specifies a resource (publishing boards) and includes metadata, which differentiates it from generic list tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like hires_list_job_boards, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use for distribution setup and board selection.' This tells the agent when to employ the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks full 'when not to use' guidance.

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