List boards

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful beyond-schema context: the failure mode on sites without Jira Software (kind=unsupported rather than empty list) and the exact pagination contract (one page per call, resume with startAt = paging.nextStartAt). This strongly supports correct agent 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?

Four tightly packed sentences each carry unique value: result contents, workflow position, filters, failure behavior, and pagination. The most important purpose statement is front-loaded, with zero filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (id, name, type, project), the workflow relationship to jira_list_sprints, the unsupported-site failure mode, and the paging protocol. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 every parameter. The description references filtering and pagination concepts but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the Jira Software boards you can see' and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, project). It also differentiates itself from sibling jira_list_sprints by stating this is the first call of any sprint workflow, making selection unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: this is the first call in sprint workflows, and filters via projectKeyOrId or type are mentioned. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, such as jira_list_projects for project-only needs, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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