bowrd_list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add value by listing the exact fields returned (ID, name, slug, description, pin counts). However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or permissions, which are the traits an agent needs for a 'list all' tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first and the return-field detail follows immediately, so every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It is close to complete for a zero-parameter list tool, though pagination and ordering behavior are unaddressed.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

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 ('List') and resource ('all boards in Bowrd'), and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bowrd_search_entries or bowrd_create_board, but the scope ('all boards') is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating boards rather than entries or a search. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g. auth) called out.

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