get_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'all' boards but does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, or any potential limitations. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a tool without structured metadata.

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, concise sentence: 'Get all Jira boards'. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks any information about return format, potential size of results, or access restrictions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context (e.g., 'returns board objects') would be helpful. This is minimally sufficient but leaves room for improvement.

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 trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds clarity by specifying 'all' boards, confirming there is no filtering. This aligns with the 0-parameter baseline and effectively communicates the lack of input parameters.

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 tool retrieves all Jira boards, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('boards'). It is not a tautology and the scope ('all') is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects' or 'get_sprints' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, without specifying use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other list-type tools. An agent would have to infer that this is the go-to tool for listing boards.

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