List Boards

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the useful behavioral context that results are scoped to the current user's accessibility. This exceeds the baseline by providing auth-related context beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss pagination or output format (which may be covered by the output schema).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation, and an output schema present), the description is complete. It specifies the resource type, the scope (current user), and the action (get all). There is no need to explain return values since the output schema handles that.

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?

With zero parameters and full schema coverage (empty schema), the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it adds no parameter-related meaning because there are none. This matches the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get all') with a clear resource ('Yandex Tracker issue boards') and a scope qualifier ('available to the current user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'board_get' (which likely retrieves a single board) and 'board_get_sprints' (which retrieves sprints for a board).

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 a use case (list all boards for the current user) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It does not mention when to use this instead of 'board_get' or other board-related tools. Context is clear but exclusions are absent, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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