board-list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implicitly signals a read-only operation, and the output fields are stated. But it lacks explicit safety statements (e.g., non-destructive, no side effects) or any mention of error conditions, timeouts, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first states what it does and what it outputs; the second gives usage guidance (run first to discover upload port and FQBN). 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 list tool, this is complete. It tells the agent what it returns (port, protocol, FQBN) and how to use it in a workflow (run first to get upload info). Nothing else is needed to call it correctly.

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, so the schema is empty. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no noise here.

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') and a specific resource ('connected Arduino boards'), and clearly states what it returns (port, protocol, detected FQBN). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'board-listall' by the word 'connected', implying a subset of boards.

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 gives clear, actionable context: 'Run this first to find the upload port and FQBN.' This tells the agent when to invoke it and for what purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like board-listall, so it falls short of a 5.

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