tb_list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read-like operation ('list boards') and mentions the extra behavior with actor and direct-v1 context. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the phrasing suggests a non-mutating action, which is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences and fairly concise. It avoids unnecessary fluff but includes a slightly verbose clause about 'direct-v1 context' and 'boards the actor owns or holds an active grant on.' Overall, it is well-structured and not overly lengthy.

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 explains the core behavior and a primary use case, but does not delve into edge cases or clarify the interaction between the separate version fields and the nested 'capability' object. Given the schema's complexity, additional context about parameter precedence or optionality would improve completeness.

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 explains the 'project' filter and mentions 'actor' in the context of the direct-v1 listing. It also references coordination_mode, api_version, and schema_version, covering most of the schema's parameters. However, the nested 'capability' object is not explicitly described, but its constituents are mentioned, providing adequate semantic coverage.

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 action ('List task boards') and the optional filter by project, making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It also distinguishes the tool from others by mentioning the direct-v1 context and its purpose for discovering board IDs.

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 provides a specific use case: 'Use this to discover board IDs after context loss.' This implies when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tb_get or tb_query, leaving some implicit guidance.

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