listMiroBoards

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 indicates a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' and specifies the user association, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, response format, or potential rate limits. For a simple list tool, the minimal info is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and directly states the resource and scope. There is zero fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It mentions the authenticated user context and Miro source, making it complete enough for a basic list operation. It could mention return value details, but these are largely inferable from the tool name.

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 zero properties, and the description has no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics here.

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 ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('list of boards') with a source ('from Miro') and scope ('associated with the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listMondayBoards and getMiroBoard.

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 a list of the user's Miro boards is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getMiroBoard for a single board). The context is clear but without exclusions or alternative guidance, it stops at an implied level.

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