Search boards

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination, ordering, or result format. It only states it searches board titles, but does not disclose whether it returns full board objects or just titles, or any side effects. With no annotations, the burden is fully on the description, which is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is too sparse for a search tool with siblings, missing important details. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.

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 the complexity (a search tool with siblings like find_cards and list_boards), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, scope limitations, or behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'search board titles' but does not explain the query parameter's semantics, format, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. This provides minimal added value over the raw 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'board titles across the whole Focalboard instance'. It implies full-text search over titles, distinguishing it from listing all boards (list_boards) or getting a specific board (get_board). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from find_cards, which searches cards.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_boards or find_cards. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the brief description.

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