list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are access-filtered by the API key, that archived boards are excluded, and that only board uuids/names are returned (status uuids are elsewhere). This is meaningful context beyond a generic list operation, though it does not mention ordering, pagination, or read-only semantics explicitly.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, access/archive behavior, and what uuids are or aren't available. No filler, front-loaded with the core function.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the result content (board uuids and names), access filtering, archive exclusion, and the relationship to downstream tools. It doesn't describe error responses or pagination, but those are less critical here; the given context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

There is only one parameter, workspace_uuid, and the schema already provides format and pattern validation. The description implicitly references the workspace in its first sentence, but does not explicitly explain that workspace_uuid is the identifier of the workspace whose boards are listed. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 explicitly names the resource (boards) and the action (list), and specifies the output (uuids and names). It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying that this is the step from workspace to readable content, and by noting that status uuids are not provided here but via get_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 provides clear workflow guidance: it positions list_boards as the bridge from workspace to board-level tools, states which downstream tools (get_board, list_tickets) will need the board uuid, and directs the user to get_board for status uuids. It also explains the consequence of a short list (limited access) and that archived boards are omitted, which frames when to expect incomplete results.

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