list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior: the limit is capped at OPENPROJECT_MAX_PAGE_SIZE (default 50) and how to page using next_offset. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention auth or return structure, but the disclosed details are valuable.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and essential pagination details in the second. It is front-loaded and concise, with no extraneous text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain all parameters and behavior. It covers pagination and basic scope but omits search semantics, project parameter format, and any indication of the return structure. For a moderately simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions limit and offset in the pagination note (though not explicitly naming 'offset' except as next_offset), but search and project parameters are not explained at all. The description adds partial value but fails to clarify all parameter semantics, especially search and project.

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 lists saved OpenProject boards/queries with optional project scoping. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('boards/queries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_board (single) and list_grids (different resource).

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 context (listing boards, optionally scoped to a project) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_board or list_grids, nor does it state when not to use this tool. No exclusions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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