list_board_texts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds an important behavioral note about distances always being in millimetres regardless of document Units, and it scopes the tool's coverage. However, it does not disclose whether any layers are excluded, the read-only nature explicitly, or potential failure modes.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second sentence provides a useful unit caveat. The third sentence, referencing the input schema URL, is redundant given the schema is already included in the input, but it doesn't significantly bloat the description.

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 has an output schema but no annotations and no parameter descriptions. While the description covers the output scope and the unit normalization, it leaves the semantics of 'path' and 'selector' ambiguous, and with 0% schema coverage, the agent lacks sufficient information to invoke the tool reliably for filtering or targeting specific documents.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter (path or selector). The only reference to the input schema is a URL, which adds no meaning beyond the field names already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and explicitly identifies the resource as 'free board text and component silk/assembly markings,' making the tool's output scope clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_objects or list_components, but the resource type is distinct enough.

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 versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without helping the agent choose among the many list/query siblings.

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