List boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, error handling, or permissions. For a list operation, it omits important behavioral traits that an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Efficiently communicates the essential 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?

Given low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the parameter well but fails to describe the return value or list fields. It is minimally viable but lacks completeness expected for full agent understanding.

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 covers the sole parameter with 100% description coverage, including a hint from list_teams. The description adds contextual guidance about the common self-hosted case, providing extra value beyond the schema alone.

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 ('List all boards') and the resource ('for a team'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_board' (singular) and 'search_boards' (search/filter), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides some usage guidance by explaining when 'teamId' can be omitted (single team case). However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like 'search_boards' and does not specify when not to use this tool, limiting actionable guidance.

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