List boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "Read-only" restates rather than extends that. It does compensate by disclosing the return shape in detail (one line per board with title, id, folder, node/item/comment counts, last change, and which board is open, plus the folder list), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It skips auth, rate limit, or pagination behavior.

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, zero filler, and the front-loading is deliberate: scope first, payload second, routing third. Every sentence earns its place for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it is safe, and where to go next. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single folder parameter is fully documented there, including its name/path/id forms and the leave-out default, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies the filter exists via the returned folder list and does not add format or syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every Mapache board") and scopes it precisely by naming the two board kinds it covers, mind maps and whiteboards. An agent can immediately distinguish it from read_board, search_boards, and the mutation siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly positions itself as an entry point ("Start here") and routes to the correct alternatives with conditions: read_board "to see a board's content" and search_boards "to find text across boards." No inference is required to pick the right tool.

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