weeek_list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "List" clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal, and "of a project" scopes the operation to a single project. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with an invalid project_id, whether the response includes both board statuses/types, or any pagination/ordering behavior. For a read-only list tool, the disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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?

Five words exactly cover the purpose with zero filler. For a simple single-parameter list tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate and commendable. No wasted sentences, no redundant elaboration.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is that it doesn't hint at the return structure (board names, IDs, statuses) or the prerequisite of obtaining a project_id first. But given the tool's simplicity and the sibling relationships in the same family (all weeek_list_* follow a predictable pattern), the description is largely sufficient.

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 compensate. The description identifies project_id as the scoping filter (boards belonging to a project), which provides some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't specify whether project_id refers to the ID from weeek_list_projects or whether any format constraints apply. With only 1 parameter and the description naming 'project' as the scope, the bare minimum is met.

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?

"List boards of a project" uses a specific verb (list) + resource (boards) + scope (of a project). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like weeek_list_projects (listing projects) and weeek_manage_boards (managing boards). Could be slightly more specific about what a board represents, but the purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weeek_list_board_columns or weeek_manage_boards. The description simply states what it does without context on selection criteria. It does, however, clearly indicate that project_id is required, implying it must be fetched first (likely via weeek_list_projects), but this prerequisite is not stated explicitly.

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