list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('list'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks detail.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and the two parameters. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers its core functionality and parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it does not mention any edge cases or limitations (e.g., if the project or team is invalid).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'project' is an Azure DevOps project name with a default, and 'team' is a team name also with a default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's simple titles, though it could specify allowed values or formats.

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 'List all boards for a project/team' using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('boards'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on other actions like creating or updating work items, pull requests, etc.

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 provides context (for a project/team) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it include any exclusions or prerequisites. It is ambiguous whether to use this for all boards or only when certain conditions apply.

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