board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds the visibility scope ('of your teams, and your own private ones'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or limits.

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 short clauses, no redundancy; the scope statement comes first and the filter second. Slightly cryptic quoting around 'private' is the only friction.

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-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, this is close to adequate, but an agent still has no idea what a 'session' record contains or how results are ordered/capped.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the magic value 'private' for the 'team' parameter to select your private sessions. That is real value beyond the terse schema text 'Only this team.'

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 name 'board' conveys nothing on its own, but the description pins the resource down as 'all live sessions you can see,' including team and private scopes. It is a noun-phrase listing rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not directly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as 'inbox'.

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 optional 'team' filter is described, including the special 'private' value, which implies when to narrow results. However, it states no alternatives and no condition under which a different sibling tool (e.g. inbox) should be preferred.

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