planka_list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait: boards are collected from each project included. However, it remains silent on whether archived boards are included, pagination, or response shape, which are modest gaps for a list operation.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, then adds the workspace-aggregation scope in a parenthetical that earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description states the operation and scope clearly. The absence of output-schema details is a minor omission, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is needed, and the description confirms the tool takes no filtering arguments.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all boards in the workspace.' The parenthetical 'collected from each project included' clarifies that this is a workspace-wide aggregation, which distinguishes it from single-board tools like planka_read_board.

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 implies when to use it: any time the full set of workspace boards is needed. However, it never explicitly contrasts with planka_read_board or states when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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