List Boards

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: every upstream page is fetched server-side, there is no page parameter, and the result is a complete list. This goes beyond the annotations to set correct pagination expectations, though it omits rate-limit or performance details.

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 serving a distinct purpose: defining scope, listing return fields, and clarifying pagination behavior. Front-loaded and no filler; every sentence 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 read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, return fields, usage context, and completeness of results. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter account_slug, including format examples and where to obtain valid values. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get all boards in a Fizzy account') and lists the returned fields (IDs, names, descriptions, URLs). The plural 'all' clearly differentiates it from the sibling fizzy_get_board, and the title 'List Boards' reinforces the intent.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'discover available boards before working with cards.' This gives clear context for selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives like fizzy_get_board for single-board lookups, so it stops short of a 5.

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