board_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no mutation or side effects, and 'all configured boards' discloses the scope. It could mention authentication or the meaning of 'capabilities', but for a simple enumeration tool the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('all configured boards', 'registry', 'capabilities') adds meaningful information, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

This is a parameterless enumeration tool with an output schema available, so the description need not explain return values. The statement fully covers what the tool does, where it operates (registry), and what it reports (capabilities), leaving no critical invocation questions open.

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, so the empty schema already documents everything. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description adds relevant context about the returned capabilities, though no parameter-specific detail is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('all configured boards in the registry and their capabilities'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like board_status by emphasizing enumeration of the full set rather than a single board.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need the complete list of configured boards and their capabilities. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it misses the top bar, but the scope ('all configured boards') makes the intended use unambiguous.

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