get_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about pagination, result limits, permissions, or default filtering behavior, which matters for a listing endpoint that may return many boards.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact args block with no wasted prose. The docstring-style formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but remains readable and short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are documented. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the definition leaves gaps around safety profile and result scoping that would help an agent call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that project_key filters by project and enumerates the valid board_type values (scrum, kanban, simple) that the schema does not restrict. It stops short of stating whether the filters are combinable or what happens if omitted.

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 Jira boards'), which unambiguously identifies the operation. There is no sibling tool for boards, so no differentiation is needed, but the description does not note scope limits such as which boards are returned.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a project key to narrow results. Usage is only implied by the filter parameters.

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