List scoreboards

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: pagination continues by passing nextCursor as cursor until null, and a filtered page may legitimately be empty.

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 compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by the key exclusion and pagination behavior. There is little wasted text.

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 the output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, exclusions, and pagination well enough to call the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is that limit semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cursor semantics and continuation behavior, but does not explain the limit parameter or its 1–100 range.

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 scoreboards) and narrows scope to the connected account's API-created generic scoreboards, explicitly excluding unrelated legacy boards. This distinguishes it clearly from the get/create/update siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context for listing API-created generic scoreboards and explicitly notes that legacy boards are not returned. It also explains cursor continuation, though it does not explicitly route to a sibling tool such as get_scoreboard.

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