board_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 列出 implies a safe read-only listing, and the description usefully adds that entries include board-level pitfall checklists, but it never explicitly states the read-only nature or scope/return shape—minor gaps for a simple list tool.

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 tight sentences with the resource front-loaded and the usage hint following. No filler, though the second sentence could be marginally sharper about when it matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a parameterless list tool needs little behavioral detail. The description covers what it lists and why to call it, leaving it adequate though not rich.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 列出 (list) 板级知识库已收录的开发板 (boards catalogued in the board-level knowledge base). It is clearly a list operation, distinguishable from the singular board_get sibling, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Adds a clear when-to-use cue: check this before selecting a board so you can see if a ready-made board-level pitfall list exists. No explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. board_get for details) is given, so it stays just short of a 5.

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