jira_list_boards

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description is not required to carry the safety burden. However, it adds nothing beyond that — no indication of scoping to a project, pagination, or result volume — so it is only adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 phrase is technically concise with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than economy. There is nothing to front-load because the description provides no content at all.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. Still, in a large sibling set containing other list-type tools, the description is too thin to tell an agent when this tool applies.

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 100% and the single projectKey parameter is documented with an example pattern, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

"List boards" is essentially a restatement of the tool name jira_list_boards, offering no elaboration beyond the verb+resource already implied. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as jira_list_projects, jira_list_sprints, or jira_list_backlog, leaving scope ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of what a 'board' is versus a project, sprint, or backlog, and no mention of when the optional projectKey should be supplied. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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