List Board Reference

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about 'local' scope and 'pin/spec metadata', but it does not disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited in any way. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool, but the description adds only modest behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key metadata qualifier. Every word 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It identifies the resource, the scope ('local'), and the included metadata ('pin/spec') without needing to restate schema information or return formats.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of 'pin/spec metadata' hints at what the returned entries contain, but no parameter documentation is needed.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('local board reference entries') and states what metadata is included ('pin/spec'). The word 'local' differentiates it from the sibling search_board_reference, which an agent can infer is for searching broader or non-local references.

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 implies this tool is for enumerating local board reference entries, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over search_board_reference or get_board_details. The 'local' qualifier gives some context, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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