alga_boards_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are paginated one page at a time, and inactive boards are silently excluded unless include_inactive is true — a default that materially changes results.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose leads, and the non-obvious default (inactive exclusion) follows. Every clause conveys information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no output schema, the description covers the two behaviors that are not derivable from the schema: pagination and the inactive-board default. Missing detail (default sort order, whether paging metadata is returned) is minor given annotations already establish safety and the schema constrains the rest.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it covers only two of six: it clarifies that search matches names and that include_inactive overrides a default exclusion. page, limit, sort and order are left entirely to the schema's names, enums and bounds, which are conventional but unexplained (e.g. default sort order is unknown).

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List ticket boards') and names the two shaping behaviors (name search, pagination). It is clearly distinct from the many other list tools because the resource itself is unique, though it never explicitly contrasts with related board-scoped tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this to enumerate boards, with search for narrowing and include_inactive for the hidden-by-default case. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or pointer to an alternative (e.g. a get-by-id tool for a single board), so guidance stops short of routing advice.

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