kupid_lms_list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes a read-only operation (list) without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or return format. While the output schema exists, the description lacks explicit behavioral notes such as 'read-only' or 'no destructive actions'. The score is 3 because it minimally conveys the operation but misses additional transparency.

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, consisting of two short paragraphs. The first defines purpose and lists examples; the second provides usage guidance and parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the second paragraph could be integrated more smoothly. No unnecessary wording, so score 4.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource, usage context, and parameter. It does not mention pagination or whether all boards are returned, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Slightly lacking in edge-case behavior, so 4.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting the only parameter: 'course_id: 과목 ID (kupid_lms_courses의 id 필드)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema (integer) by linking to another tool's field. The description fully covers what the parameter represents and its source, earning a 4.

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 boards in a Canvas course, with specific examples like 'Q&A 게시판, 강의자료실'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kupid_lms_modules and kupid_lms_get_board_post by specifying its purpose of returning board lists, which is a unique resource among siblings.

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 explicit guidance: 'Canvas 네이티브 모듈(kupid_lms_modules)에 자료가 없으면 여기서 찾아보세요.' This tells the agent when to use this tool as an alternative to modules. No exclusion criteria are given, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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