jira_list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the operation is a read-only listing ('List'), and specifies the return fields. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but for a simple list operation, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the output fields. Every word adds value, with 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 zero-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slight gap: no mention of whether 'accessible' includes archived boards or permissions constraints, but this is not critical for a list operation.

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 schema is empty. The description adds meaningful information about what the tool returns, which is the only semantic context needed. No parameter documentation is required, earning the baseline of 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 action ('List'), the resource ('all accessible JIRA boards'), and the output scope (IDs, names, types, project keys). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_list_sprints or jira_list_attachments.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the phrase 'List all accessible' implies it serves as a discovery mechanism for boards, and sibling names don't overlap with this function. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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