list_task_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only 'List' nature, explains the purpose of joining an existing board, and documents the return format (dict with boards and schema URL). It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or permissions, but the wording strongly implies a non-mutating lookup.

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 tightly structured: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, and a brief return summary. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a simple no-argument list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains why to call it, when to call it, and what it returns. The scope ('user's existing task boards') is clear, and it correctly positions the tool against create_task_board.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the user's existing task boards') and clearly distinguishes from sibling create_task_board by noting it avoids creating a duplicate. The phrase 'so you can join one instead of creating a duplicate' clarifies the intended operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'at session start when the user refers to ongoing work... and you don't already have the project id.' This provides a clear trigger condition and implies when not to use it, while also contrasting with creating a new board.

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