List boards

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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds context about the optional include parameters and default response format, which is useful but does not address potential pagination or access limitations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a list of arguments, and examples. It is concise, though the argument list could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description covers inputs well but lacks information about the output structure (e.g., markdown vs json format details) and does not clarify the openWorldHint annotation (e.g., potential pagination or incomplete results).

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 details all six parameters (include_archived, include_columns, etc.) with clear explanations and examples, greatly supplementing the minimal schema descriptions (only response_format has one).

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 'List all boards in the organization' with optional related data, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kanbanzone_get_board (single board) and other list tools for sub-resources.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The examples imply usage contexts ('What boards do I have?'), but alternative tools are not mentioned.

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