Listar quadros

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

The annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds the HTTP GET endpoint and notes that board id fields are UUIDs, which are useful beyond the annotation defaults. It does not cover pagination or response shape, but those are not critical for this simple list operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action and object, and only includes two meaningful details: the endpoint and the id type. No filler or repetition.

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 has no parameters and is a simple authenticated read-only list operation, the description covers the core semantics well. Minor omissions such as response shape or pagination exist, but annotations and endpoint information make the definition sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 no parameters, so the schema already provides complete coverage. The description adds one relevant semantic detail (id is a UUID), which is helpful for downstream usage, though not strictly parameter-related.

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 ('Lista') and names the exact resource ('quadros/boards'), adds the scope ('acessíveis ao usuário autenticado') and the endpoint ('GET'), making it unmistakable which operation is performed. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools that list tickets, projects, or other resources.

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 by specifying that this returns the boards accessible to the authenticated user, so an agent knows it is for fetching available boards. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the resource and scope are sufficiently explicit.

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