kanbn_list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it describe workspace resolution behavior, error cases, or return structure. The safety profile is inferable but not explicit.

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 one concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description plus schema is arguably sufficient to invoke the tool. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned board list contains or how the optional path affects the workspace. The description is minimally viable but not richly contextual.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'path' is already documented as 'Path to the project root directory.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all boards in the workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling board-related tools like kanbn_board_exists and kanbn_boards_summary by emphasizing enumeration of all boards rather than checking or summarizing.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_boards_summary, kanbn_board_exists, or kanbn_create_board. With over sixty sibling tools, the absence of any usage context or exclusions leaves the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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