List Tracker boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: auto-pagination via the relative id-cursor, ascending-id sort order, and the default item cap that applies when limit is omitted. It does not describe the returned board shape, but that is a minor omission for a read-only list.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load: scope+ordering, pagination, cap semantics, and sibling routing. The scoping fact is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination and cap behavior, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could note the identity/permission scope of 'the organisation' but 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 description coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the YCLI__HTTP__MAX_ITEMS cap. The description restates the cap-override behavior without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (all agile boards in the organisation) plus a concrete ordering guarantee (ascending board id). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from boards_get and sprints_list, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: use boards_get when a single board id is known, and sprints_list to list a board's sprints. This is the enumerate-everything case, and the alternatives are spelled out rather than left to inference.

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