Get All Boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: matching relies on each board's own filter, so boards filtering by other criteria will be missed. This goes beyond the schema and helps set expectations.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action comes first, followed by the key parameter guidance, then an important limitation and workaround. 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?

For a read-only listing tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, a key behavioral caveat, and an alternative route. Pagination and field selection are already documented in the input schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the queue parameter's behavior (matching against the board's filter) and by suggesting `issues_find` plus the `boards` field as a fallback when queue-based lookup is incomplete.

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 clearly states the operation: retrieving all agile boards of the organization, with an optional queue filter. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by pointing to `board_get` for reading a single board in full and to `issues_find` for discovering boards via issues.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool (get organization boards, optionally scoped by queue) and provides a practical alternative when a board's own filter does not match. The caveat about queue matching and the recommendation to inspect issues' `boards` field gives concrete routing guidance.

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