List board items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether this operation is read-only, what happens if the board is empty, performance implications of large lists, or any side effects. For a listing tool, the behavior is relatively simple, but the lack of annotations and any safety context leaves the agent without important behavioral information.

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 two concise sentences that convey the main purpose and a key filtering option. There is no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value relative to the tool name and title.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return format, pagination behavior (if any), and default values for limit and include_done. The absence of these details leaves the agent guessing about how many items are returned and what status items are included by default.

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 coverage is low at 33%, meaning only 1 of 3 parameters has a schema description (owner: 'Agent id; omit for all'). The tool description adds a semantic hint about 'Filter by owner' aligning with the owner parameter, but it does not explain limit or include_done beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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 states 'List board items and delegated tasks' which gives a clear verb and general resource. It also adds scoping detail with 'Filter by owner to see just one lane.' While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like board_post or board_update, the purpose is clear enough to separate it from tools with different verbs.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 15 siblings including board_post, board_update, ag_delegate, and several other listing tools (e.g., check_paths, notes_read), there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools.

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