amulen_list_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that results are permission-filtered ("that I can see") and that each board carries its columns as valid states plus a per-board edit capability flag. With no output schema, this is meaningful shape information. It stops short of covering ordering, pagination, or behavior when the project is inaccessible.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned payload and edit flag. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every clause contributes information.

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 read-only single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, permission filtering, and the key returned fields (columns/valid states, editability), which is what an agent needs to chain into follow-up calls. Minor gaps remain around slug sourcing and result ordering/limits.

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 is a single required parameter, project_slug, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It only implies project scoping through the phrase "of a project" and says nothing about slug format versus ID or how to obtain a slug (e.g., from amulen_list_projects). Partial compensation, not full.

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 and resource ("List the boards of a project") plus the scope of visibility ("that I can see"), which separates it from amulen_get_board for a single board and from amulen_list_projects. It does not name a sibling outright, but the resource-level specificity is enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: listing boards with their columns as "valid states" hints that this is a discovery step before task creation or board updates, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the workflow context.

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