List Boards

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation by saying 'List' and 'Returns,' and it discloses the output shape (board id, name, description, URL, closed status). It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or token permission scope, but for a simple list operation the behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action and scope before listing return fields. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource scope and the returned fields, while the schema covers the filter. It does not explain when to prefer this over sibling board-listing tools, but that gap is more about usage guidance than contextual completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the filter parameter is already fully documented with an enum and default value. The description adds no additional semantics about the filter parameter or how it affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or enrich it.

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') and names the resource ('all Trello boards for the authenticated user'), giving a clear scope. It also enumerates the exact returned fields, which removes ambiguity about what the tool produces. This distinguishes it from sibling board-related tools like get_organization_boards or get_member_boards.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_organization_boards, get_member_boards, or get_board. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling tool. Usage context is only implicit in the phrase 'for the authenticated user.'

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