list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is free but requires an API key, is rate-limited, and costs no credits, and it clarifies that watching a board does not change its refresh cadence. This is meaningful context for a 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 and front-loaded, consisting of three sentences that each add value: purpose/board definition, refresh behavior, and cost/auth notes. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a straightforward list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, board definition, cost, rate limiting, and auth requirements. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but for a list tool this is largely implied, making the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already fully describes both parameters (limit: 'Max boards to return', offset: 'Number of boards to skip, for paging') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('List every board') and the resource ('board (a tracked corpus source, identified by corpusType + state)'). The phrase 'available to watch' suggests its use case and differentiates it from watch-management siblings like list_watches, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 this tool is for discovering boards to watch, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like list_watches, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the API key. The refresh cadence note is more about behavior than usage guidance.

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