List boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing two real behavioral constraints: results are limited to open (not archived/closed) boards, and results are permission-scoped to what the current user can see.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then tacks on the output-value note. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information an agent can use.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It hints at the return shape ('ids') but does not mention pagination, result limits, or whether closed boards are reachable anywhere, which would matter for an agent planning around large accounts.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter syntax exists that could be misused.

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 verb and resource ('List the open boards') and narrows scope with two qualifiers: only open boards, and only those the current user can see. The resource alone cleanly separates it from siblings like trello_list_lists, trello_list_cards, and trello_search_cards.

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 clause 'with ids for the other tools' implies this is the id-source entry point for downstream operations, which is useful implied usage. However, it never explicitly states when to use this instead of alternatives such as trello_search_cards, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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