Boards opvragen

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'gives' (geeft), implying a read-only retrieval, but it does not explicitly state side-effects, permissions, pagination, or any limit. The absence of this additional information leaves the tool behavior under-specified.

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?

One compact sentence carries the entire description, stating the resource, scope, and output fields with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, covering the key details efficiently.

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 description states what the result includes (board IDs and names) and it is a simple single-parameter list tool. It lacks details like sorting or pagination, but these are not essential for an agent to call it incorrectly. An output schema is absent, so the description's mention of ID and name is sufficient to set expectations.

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 for workspaceId ('ID van de workspace'). The tool description only restates this by saying 'within a workspace', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the description does not enhance the parameter understanding.

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 action ('Geeft' = gives/lists) and resource ('boards within a workspace') and specifies that the result includes each board's ID and name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamhood_list_workspaces (lists workspaces) and teamhood_get_board_structure (for board details structure).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over its alternatives. The description only states what the tool does; it does not mention alternative tools or conditions (e.g., 'for a detailed board structure, use teamhood_get_board_structure').

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