List Kanbini boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains that updatedAt blends the board timestamp with the newest activity-log entry (so array order is real recency), that an empty result is [] rather than an error, and that a closed desktop app causes a fallback to the last on-disk export with a response prefix notice.

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, front-loaded with the resource and return shape, then the usage directive, then edge cases. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and failure modes – and it does, including field list, empty-array semantics, sort order rationale, and degraded-mode behavior. Nothing needed to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param schema applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the call as a full enumeration.

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 ("Enumerate every board in the database") and then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, description, archived flag, list/card counts, updatedAt). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by directing the agent to pass discovered boardIds to kanbini_get_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?

"Use this first to discover boardIds before calling kanbini_get_board" gives explicit ordering and names the follow-up alternative. It does not address overlap with kanbini_list_archived, so an agent must still infer whether archived boards are included here (the presence of the archived flag only implies it).

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