Get Agile Boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds basic return type ('list of board objects'). It does not elaborate on pagination behavior despite parameters like start_at and limit, nor on authentication requirements or data freshness.

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 uses a clear structured format with Args/Returns sections and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly verbose for a simple get tool, but still effective.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and parameters are fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential input and output. It could mention the scope of boards (e.g., user-accessible boards) but is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema already documents each parameter adequately. The description repeats the parameter descriptions without adding new meaning or constraints beyond what is in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'jira agile boards', and specifies filtering by name, project key, or type. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_board_issues which retrieves issues from a board, not the board list itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when or when not to use this tool vs alternatives among the many Jira sibling tools. It lacks explicit context like 'use this to list boards before selecting one for further operations' or 'for board-specific issues, use jira_get_board_issues'.

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