zoznam_boardov

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states this is a listing operation that returns all boards with IDs, with no side effects implied. This is adequate for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it does not describe sorting, error cases, or exact response shape beyond IDs.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second gives practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, output content, and concrete usage scenarios. Nothing material is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing irrelevant parameter details.

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 ('Vypíše' = lists), a clear resource ('všetky Trello nástenky používateľa'), and the key output ('aj s ich ID'). The stated use case of discovering which board a user means clearly differentiates it from project-focused siblings like sumar_projektu or stav_projektu.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: when the specific board is unknown or when the user asks what projects they have in Trello. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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