jira_get_agile_boards

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type ('JSON string representing a list of board objects') and mentions fuzzy search, which adds some context. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or how the fuzzy search behaves, leaving gaps.

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 efficient: a single introductory sentence followed by a parameter list. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but is standard docstring format and not excessively verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, and return value. The output schema handles the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain it. The only missing piece is explicit usage guidance, but that's not critical for a straightforward read-only tool.

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 100% description coverage with clear explanations for all five parameters. The description largely repeats the schema information without adding extra meaning beyond the 'fuzzy search' note already present in the schema. The description doesn't compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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's function: 'Get jira agile boards by name, project key, or type.' The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'jira agile boards' makes the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_board_issues or jira_get_sprints_from_board by focusing on board listing/filtering.

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 implies when to use the tool via its filter parameters but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named. Since it's a straightforward listing tool with no closely competing sibling, the implicit context is acceptable, but it doesn't reach the level of explicit guidance.

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