list-workspace-boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('List'), but doesn't cover aspects like permissions required, pagination, rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output, which are needed for a more complete understanding, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'workspaceId' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('boards (murals) within a specific workspace'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-room-boards' or 'get-board', which might handle similar resources, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance by specifying 'within a specific workspace', but it doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-room-boards' or 'get-board', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative context limits its utility for an AI agent.

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