list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authorization scope (visible to the authenticated member) but says nothing about the default of returning only open boards, rate limits, or result size — and the default filter=open is a behavior an agent could easily misread as 'all boards'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the usage trigger first and the return scope second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 simple discovery tool with a fully described two-parameter schema, the description covers when to call and what comes back. The one meaningful gap is that it never warns the caller that results default to open boards only, which matters for a first-lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (fields, filter) are fully documented with a default and an enum in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so 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 and resource (list boards) and pins the scope to boards visible to the authenticated member. It is clearly distinguishable from board_get or board_lists, though it does not explicitly contrast with member_boards or workspace_boards, which also return board collections.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use first when the user has supplied no board, list, card id, or Trello URL. That is a clear entry-point rule, but the description does not name the alternative tools to call once an id is known, nor when to prefer member_boards/workspace_boards.

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