List Boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping fact that boards are listed within a space and that the output feeds other tools, but it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or return-shape details. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra behavioral context is provided beyond them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope; the second sentence ties the tool into the broader API data flow. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter, the description plus 100% schema coverage is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It specifies where the required spaceId comes from and what consumers use the output boardId. The lack of return-shape or pagination detail is a minor gap given the simple nature of the operation.

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 documents spaceId's provenance and the verbosity enum. The description repeats the spaceId source and adds downstream-consumer context for the returned boardId, which is helpful but not necessary for understanding the input parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the core action explicitly: 'List boards in a space.' It names the resource (boards), the scope (a space), and further clarifies that the output boardId feeds multiple downstream board-related tools, making the tool's role in the API workflow clear and distinguishable from siblings like kaiten_get_board or kaiten_list_spaces.

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 gives clear workflow context: spaceId should come from kaiten_list_spaces, and the resulting boardId is used by seven named downstream tools. This tells the agent when this tool fits into a multi-step sequence. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as kaiten_get_board for fetching a single board, but the context is strong enough to route usage correctly.

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