azure_list_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It merely restates the operation implied by the tool name ('list boards') and adds minimal scope ('of the project'). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'list' implies read-only.

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 a single, clear sentence that states the essential purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless list operation.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention what is returned (e.g., board objects) or any limitations, and it could differentiate from sibling tools that might overlap in purpose. Given the minimal requirements, a score of 3 reflects the missing but not critical context.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule, a zero-parameter tool receives a score of 4 unless the description adds confusion, which it does not.

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 action (list) and the resource (boards) scoped to the project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like azure_get_board_config, which retrieves a specific board's configuration.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts where this is preferred, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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