structure_list

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that only boards visible to the user are returned, which is a key behavioral constraint not captured by annotations or schema. No contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The final sentence about structureId from a JSP URL is a slight tangent, though it offers operational context. Overall, efficient with minimal waste.

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?

With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, endpoint, and a usage hint, but does not mention pagination, default limits, or return format. The read-only annotations reduce risk, and the provided details are sufficient for basic use.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'name substring filter' only repeats the schema's own description, adding no new semantic value beyond what is already structured.

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 identifies the tool as listing Tempo Structure boards accessible to the user, using the specific verb 'List' and naming the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like structure_get and structure_getForest, which target individual boards or forests.

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 by stating the user-visible scope and an optional name filter, implying use for discovery. It does not explicitly exclude or name alternatives, but the 'List' vs 'get' distinction in sibling tool names makes the intended use clear.

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