list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It's a non-destructive listing tool (read-only intent is clear), but it doesn't explicitly disclose safety profile like readOnlyHint would. However, the purpose inherently signals enumeration/read, and mention of SYNTHETIC_BOARD for development adds behavioral context. The description names what's returned (names, ids, rates, channel counts) which adds some transparency but doesn't explain return format or error cases.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the main listing intent, the 'start here' guidance, and the two no-hardware special cases, plus the returns summary. Slightly verbose in the returns section but otherwise tight and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return contents, special no-hardware boards, and when to use it. The output schema handles return details, so no additional description burden exists. This is a fully adequate description for this simple tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the description only needs to convey what the no-arg call returns. With zero params, the baseline is 4. The description does clearly enumerate the return fields (board names, ids, sampling rates, EEG channel counts), which is useful context beyond the empty schema. It fully compensates since there are no parameters requiring explanation.

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 verb+resource ('List every board BrainFlow can acquire from') and clearly scopes it by listing what's returned: names, ids, sampling rates, and EEG channel counts. It distinguishes this from the large sibling set by being the only discovery/enumeration tool for boards, clearly different from session, stream, event, and stim tools.

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 'Start here when you do not know what hardware is available,' giving a concrete when-to-use cue. It also notes that two entries need no hardware (SYNTHETIC_BOARD and PLAYBACK_FILE_BOARD) and explains what they do, helping the agent pick appropriate boards for development and replay scenarios.

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