listJiraBoards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The one bit the description adds is "visible to the current user," which signals permission-scoped results, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or how the open-world remote fetch behaves.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance: for a five-parameter listing tool with no schema documentation, this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

Five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation gaps mean the description is the only place filter, pagination, and return-shape context could live — and it provides none. An agent knows the high-level intent but not how to filter or page, which is a real gap for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters (name, type, startAt, maxResults, projectKeyOrId), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them — and it explains none. The only hint is the visibility scope, which does not clarify whether name is a substring filter, how startAt/maxResults paginate, or why projectKeyOrId narrows results; the single enum on type is left uninterpreted as well.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Lists boards") and adds a scope qualifier ("visible to the current user"), which is enough to distinguish it from mutating siblings like createJiraBoard. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as listJiraBoardSprints or getJiraBoardConfig, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getJiraBoardConfig for a single board's configuration, listJiraBoardSprints for a board's sprints) and no mention of prerequisites such as required Jira scopes or permissions. Usage is only implied by the name.

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