list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the default board is 'Sprint 1' and that closed boards are hidden unless include_closed=true. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention auth requirements or output format details, but for a list operation these are less critical. It's not a tautology and adds genuine value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundant content. Every word carries weight, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, default behavior, and visibility of closed boards. It does not explain return value structure, but that's expected without an output schema. Slight deduction for not providing any guidance on when to prefer this over other board-related tools, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'format' described. The description compensates by explaining the include_closed parameter (closed boards hidden unless true) and implying the project_id parameter (boards of a project). However, it does not add meaning for 'format' beyond what the schema already provides, and the 'Sprint 1' default is about boards, not a parameter. Overall, partial compensation for the low schema 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 tool's purpose: listing a project's boards (sprints/kanban boards). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_board, update_board, close_board, and reopen_board by being the read-only listing operation. The mention of default 'Sprint 1' and include_closed behavior adds specificity beyond a generic 'List boards'.

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 gives clear context: use it to list boards for a specific project, with an optional include_closed flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it is the go-to listing tool as opposed to creation/modification/deletion siblings. Slight deduction for not explicitly excluding other list tools like list_milestones or list_stages.

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