list_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the source scope, that only tracked boards are returned, and the exact fields returned. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is adequate.

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 three short sentences with the main purpose first, followed by scope and return-value details. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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, the description covers what the tool does, what it includes, and what it returns. It even notes the id's role with get_board, so an agent has enough context to invoke and use the result 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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already makes obvious. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than invented parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the GitHub Projects v2 boards the user tracks') and clarifies scope ('configured repository's account', 'every project source added on the board'). It also names the return fields and links the id to get_board, which distinguishes it from its siblings.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to list tracked boards and obtain their ids for later use with get_board. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use is clear from the context.

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