list_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a scope boundary; it says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits despite the tool exposing several pagination parameters. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the scope exclusion. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a read tool with seven parameters including nested pagination cursors and a detail-level enum, the description leaves the caller without guidance on how to page or how detail affects the response.

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 only 43%: limit, detail, offset and space_id are undocumented in the schema, and the description explains none of them. It never mentions the summary/full detail enum or the pagination cursors, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 7-parameter tool.

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 verb and resource ('List board metadata') plus the scope ('in a space'), and the second sentence carves out the boundary that separates it from the card-listing siblings. An agent can distinguish list_boards from list_board_cards / list_space_cards without opening either schema.

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 negation 'Does not retrieve cards' is a useful when-not signal, but no alternative is named explicitly (list_board_cards would be the obvious route) and no prerequisites such as the required space_id are mentioned. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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