bowrd_list_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, whether the default limit is applied, or what happens when board_id is omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 clean sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin enough that it leaves obvious questions unanswered.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It is missing sibling differentiation (search_entries), return shape, and pagination/ordering context, which the agent would otherwise need.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit, board_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates board_id filtering but adds no format, range, or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('pins/entries from Bowrd') with an optional filter scope. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling bowrd_search_entries, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which listing tool to pick.

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 notes optional board filtering but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions the alternative bowrd_search_entries for filtered queries. Usage must be inferred from the name and sibling list.

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