board_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance ('when possible') regarding FQBN detection, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any system requirements, though these are less critical for a simple listing tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds a concise caveat and a sibling reference. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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-oriented tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, a limitation, and its relationship to a sibling. It does not explain return structure or edge cases, but these are secondary for this tool type.

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 single parameter (discoveryTimeout) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add details. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already covers it adequately, matching 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 'List' with a clear resource ('connected boards') and adds 'detected FQBN when possible' to specify the output detail. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_ports by calling itself a 'companion', making its scope clear.

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 phrase 'Alias-friendly companion to list_ports' implies a complementary relationship and hints at alternative usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use board_list over list_ports or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is present but left to inference.

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