rx_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces read-only and adds the non-obvious default filtering (only open boards) and row cap (20, overridable). It does not describe ordering or pagination cursor behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, returned fields, routing guidance, defaults, and sibling distinction each appear once with no filler. Slightly dense with several clauses, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema and straightforward annotations, the description supplies what is missing: the returned field set, default scoping, row limit, and routing to rx_board for content. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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% and all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the max of 100. The description largely restates those defaults (open-only, include_closed=true) rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (agile boards Directum RX) and enumerates the returned fields (Id, name, card prefix, owner, project). It is distinguishable from siblings like rx_board (board contents) and rx_tickets without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to find a board and its Id before rx_board, rx_tickets, or rx_create_ticket, and clarifies that board contents are shown by rx_board instead. Default behavior (open only, up to 20 rows) and the include_closed toggle are spelled out.

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