list_board_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (item IDs, types, positions, text content) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Lists', but it says nothing about pagination or result-size limits, which matter for a board-wide listing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its filter, then the usage cue, then the return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned fields, which is appropriate. The only real gap is absence of pagination or large-board guidance; otherwise it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the type enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description repeats rather than extends it. It adds no format detail beyond what the schema already gives for board_id and type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists all items on a Miro board') plus the optional type filter, which pins down the operation precisely. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_board_info or list_mindmap_nodes, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use this to understand what is already on the board before creating or modifying anything' gives a clear situational trigger tied to the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. get_board_info for board metadata) or stating when not to use it.

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