list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that it lists presets. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. As a result, the description does not add sufficient context beyond the obvious.

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 sentence with no extraneous information, front-loading the key verb and resource. Every word adds value, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential aspects: what is listed and the fields included. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention if the list is comprehensive or cached.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the fields included in the output (target, device, package, clock frequency), which aids understanding without needing parameter documentation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all known FPGA board presets', and specifies the output includes target, device, package, and clock frequency. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_builds or list_ip_cores.

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 when you need a list of board presets with specific fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. For a tool with no parameters, this is largely clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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