yougile_list_boards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavior of filtering by projectId, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination behavior or response structure. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: 'List boards' states the action, and the second sentence explains the most useful filter. This is appropriately concise.

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 read-only list tool, the description is minimal but adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the description does not communicate what the response contains (e.g., array of board objects, fields returned). Pagination via limit/offset is implicitly present in the schema but not mentioned in the description, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description only reinforces the projectId filter, which is already in the schema. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high 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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('boards'), and adds a filter hint ('by projectId'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_board by indicating it lists multiple boards, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_projects).

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 implies when to use the tool (to see boards for a specific project) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_board for a single board. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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