Get Agile Boards

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation, so the description doesn't contradict. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., filter combination logic, ordering, or auth requirements), but the absence of such detail is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that delivers all essential information without filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with an output schema present, so return values are not needed. The description accurately conveys the core functionality, though a note on how multiple filters combine would enhance completeness. Given the simplicity, it's largely sufficient.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters including fuzzy search and patterns. The description adds only a brief summary of filter types, which provides marginal value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 tool retrieves Jira agile boards, with a specific list of filter dimensions (name, project key, type). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that operate on boards (e.g., jira_get_board_issues), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the description indicates the tool is for finding boards by various criteria. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other board-related tools or any exclusions, which keeps it at the 'implied usage' level.

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