List boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful chaining fact that returned board ids feed sprint lookups. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether all boards across sites are returned.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and filters front-loaded, followed by the downstream-use note. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is a fragment that could more explicitly name the sprint tools.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description leaves the agent guessing at the returned shape (does it include board id, name, type, project?) and at site selection behavior. The chaining hint helps, but an agent still needs to open the schema to call this confidently.

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 only 25% (only 'site' is documented), so the description must carry more weight. It does mention name and projectKey filtering, covering two of four params, but the 'type' enum (scrum/kanban/simple) is only obliquely hinted at by 'Scrum/Kanban boards' and 'site' is not explained at all. Partial compensation, not full.

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 names the resource (Scrum/Kanban boards) and the available filters (project key or name), and the tool name/title supply the 'list' verb. It distinguishes itself from sprint-related siblings by positioning itself as the board-id source. It stops short of a full verb+resource statement on its own.

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?

'Board ids are needed for sprint lookups' implies the ordering: call this before jira_get_sprints/jira_get_sprint_issues. But no sibling is named explicitly and there are no when-not conditions (e.g. when to use jira_list_projects instead). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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