List Kanban boards

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing the 'writing redacted receipts' side effect—useful behavioral context that annotations don't capture. It's a read operation with a minor write side-effect disclosed.

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?

Single well-structured sentence that is technically informative ('Typed GET wrapper') and content-specific ('every board on disk with metadata, task counts, health, active board slug'), while flagging the receipt-writing behavior. No filler or redundancy across the length.

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 simple listing tool with 0 required params, full schema coverage, an output schema present, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), this description covers the essentials: what's listed, what metadata is included, and the side-effect of redaction receipts. The return values need not be described since output schema exists. Minor gap: doesn't cover the write side-effect implications or any performance/filtering nuance.

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 100%, so both parameters (include_counts, include_archived) are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions and defaults. The description mentions 'task counts and health metadata' which maps to include_counts, and 'every board' implicitly touches the archived filtering, but doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Lists kanban boards') with clear scope: 'every board on disk with metadata, task counts, health, and the active board slug.' Distinguishes from siblings like hermes_kanban_board_get (single board) and hermes_kanban_config_get. The HTTP wrapper detail adds technical grounding.

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 clearly states what the listing includes, giving agents context on when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like hermes_kanban_board_get or mention when to prefer one over the other, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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