List boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not burdened with restating safety. It adds context about the authenticated user scope and enumerates the exact return fields (id, name, slug, isArchived, columns, stages, config, taskCounter, createdAt), which is valuable behavioral detail. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that states the action and resource, then lists return fields in a compact and readable manner. No redundant or filler content.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, access restrictions, and return shape. It includes all key fields and even indicates archived state via 'isArchived'. Pagination/ordering are not mentioned but are unnecessary for this simple case.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description correctly omits parameter details.

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 resource 'Kelvia boards', clearly stating the scope 'accessible to the authenticated user'. It enumerates the return fields, which distinguishes it from tools like get_board (single board) or list_board_columns (columns only).

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 implies usage when needing all boards but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_board for a specific board or list_board_columns for columns only. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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