list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('list') but does not mention side effects, idempotency, pagination behavior (limit/offset), or any constraints. A more thorough description would clarify these aspects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameter roles). However, it earns its place with no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention the return format, pagination handling, or the effect of search. For a list tool with 4 parameters, a more complete description is necessary.

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 only explains the 'project' parameter's role in scoping. The limit, offset, and search parameters are not addressed, leaving their semantics unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 an optional project scope. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the presence of many sibling list_* tools (e.g., list_projects, list_views) helps distinguish it as a tool for listing boards specifically.

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 mentions optional project scoping, implying a filtering use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_views or search_work_packages, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied but incomplete.

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