list_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('List all... accessible') but doesn't disclose traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or return format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's function ('List all MIRO boards accessible to the user') with zero redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: no information on return values (e.g., board list structure), error cases, authentication needs, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a list tool with no structured support, the description should provide more operational guidance.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', the schema fully documents its type, description, and default value. The description doesn't compensate or add context about parameter usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('MIRO boards'), specifying scope ('all... accessible to the user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_board' (singular) and 'search_board_content' (filtered search) by emphasizing comprehensive listing without filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'get_board_frames' or 'get_board_items', which target specific board components rather than board lists.

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 for retrieving accessible boards, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'search_board_content' for filtered searches. The context is clear but lacks proactive guidance for tool selection.

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