fizzy_list_boards

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, return format, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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 one short sentence that precisely conveys the tool's function with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple list operation, the description is adequate but lacks detail about the return format or any pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent must rely on the description, which only says 'List all boards' without specifying what information is returned or whether the result is truncated. This is a minor but real gap.

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 fully describes the input. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies as per rubric for empty parameter sets.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a specific resource 'Fizzy boards' and scope 'in the account'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cards and list_columns by naming the resource type, and from get_board by indicating it returns all boards rather than one.

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 makes the tool's purpose self-evident, implying it should be used when the agent needs to enumerate all boards. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tool names provide the context that list_cards and list_columns are for other resources, so there is no real ambiguity.

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