board_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'when possible' for FQBN detection, hinting at best-effort behavior. However, it does not explain what 'alias-friendly' means, nor does it mention discovery behavior, timeout handling, or output format. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the main action ('List connected boards') and a useful qualifier ('with detected FQBN when possible'). The companion note is brief and earns its place by distinguishing it from list_ports. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It indicates the tool lists boards and attempts FQBN detection, and relates it to list_ports. The main gap is the undefined term 'alias-friendly' and lack of explicit mention of return value/edge cases, but overall it provides enough context for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The schema fully describes the single optional parameter (discoveryTimeout) with a clear description: 'Optional discovery timeout in seconds.' The tool description adds no further meaning about this parameter or how it affects behavior, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List connected boards with detected FQBN when possible.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('boards'), and adds a key qualifier about FQBN detection. It also differentiates from sibling tool list_ports by labeling itself as a companion, making its purpose distinct.

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 provides context by calling it a 'companion to list_ports,' implying it serves a different but related purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when to use board_list versus list_ports, nor does it offer exclusions or conditions. This is clear context without explicit alternatives guidance.

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