list_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention any potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements. It is minimally adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the essential information directly and efficiently.

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, parameterless list operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states the scope ('all') and resource ('boards'). The existence of an output schema means return values are structured elsewhere, so the description does not need to elaborate on the response format. A slightly lower score would apply if there were more behavioral nuances, but here it fits the tool's simplicity.

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?

Since there are no parameters (0 params), the description need not add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the action without needing to explain parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('BusinessMap boards'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_users and list_workspaces by explicitly naming boards as the target resource.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving all boards, which differentiates it from tools like get_board_cards or search_cards. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of full guideline coverage.

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