list_boards

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. 'List' weakly implies a read operation, but there is nothing about pagination behavior, auth/scope requirements, ordering defaults, or what is returned — significant gaps for a five-parameter listing 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?

The description is only three words with no padding, so it is concise by default, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy of expression.

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?

With five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description would need to explain filtering/pagination and the difference from list_team_boards. It names the resource but leaves nearly everything else undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters (page, pageSize, search, orderBy, sortDescending). The description adds no syntax, defaults, or meaning for any of them, so an agent gets no help on pagination, filtering, or sorting semantics.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination ('List ... boards') and adds a version qualifier ('Umami v3'), so an agent knows it enumerates boards. It does not differentiate from the sibling list_team_boards, however, leaving ambiguity about which list route to use.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_team_boards, get_board, or any other board sibling. No prerequisites, no scoping conditions, no exclusions.

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