list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool returns board metadata without side effects (no destructive hint), but it does not mention authentication requirements, response format beyond fields, or performance characteristics. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main action in the first sentence, then listing returned fields and providing a usage alternative. Every sentence 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?

Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return shape), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what it returns, and it provides a pointer to a related sibling for deeper detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information because none 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 clearly states the tool lists all boards (projects) in the organisation, specifying the returned fields (slug, name, description, member count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_board() by directing users to that tool for full detail on a specific 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 a clear usage alternative: 'Use get_board() for full detail on a specific board.' This guides the agent on when to prefer this tool over a sibling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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