List Boards

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: boards are tracked corpus sources, the result includes refresh cadence, and board identity depends on corpusType plus state with state null for federal. This is meaningful semantic context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences cover the core action, the domain model, and the intended use case with no filler. 'List every watchable board' is front-loaded, and every clause 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 the rich parameter schema and readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete for a listing/discovery tool. There is no output schema, so a tiny bit more detail about the returned board shape could help, but the mention of refresh cadence and the connection to create_watch give sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including state's special 'federal' meaning and corpusType case-insensitivity. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every watchable board,' then defines what a board is with concrete examples. It also clarifies the identity model (corpusType plus state) and ties the tool to subscription discovery, which separates it from sibling tools like list_watches.

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 explicitly says to use it 'to discover what can be subscribed to before calling create_watch,' giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the discovery-before-subscription framing provides enough routing guidance.

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