Get Agile Boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the filters and does not mention pagination or result ordering, but with rich annotations the bar is lower and a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action, resource, and supported filters, which is appropriately sized for a straightforward listing 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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents all parameters, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description states the core purpose and filters clearly. It could mention that results are paginated, but the schema already exposes limit and start_at, making this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including fuzzy search on board_name and the enum-like examples for board_type. The description merely restates three of the filters without adding syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get Jira agile boards. It also names the three supported filter dimensions (name, project key, type), which lets an agent distinguish it from issue- or sprint-focused siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from jira_get_board_issues or jira_get_sprints_from_board, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a listing tool from the verb and filters alone. There is no explicit routing guidance versus jira_get_board_issues or jira_get_sprints_from_board.

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