list_agile_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that only 'accessible' boards are returned, that both board types are included, and that filtering is optional. It does not detail pagination or ordering edge cases, but these are minor for a read-only listing operation and partially covered by the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the filtering nuance follows immediately. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource, scope, and filter options. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on pagination behavior or relationship to sibling board/sprint tools, but this does not undermine 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters, including type, defaults, and constraints. The description only high-level restates the project/type filters and adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('accessible Agile boards'), and explicitly includes both Scrum and Kanban types. It also mentions the filtering capability, making the tool's purpose precise and distinguishable from sibling tools focused on sprints, issues, or Confluence content.

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 when to use the tool ('to find specific boards' by project or type) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_sprints_for_board or state when not to use it. Context is present, but the agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools.

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