list_errors

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the payload shape ('the first error' — i.e., one error per board, not exhaustive) and enumerates error categories, but says nothing about the empty-result case, error object structure, or whether boards must be open/accessible to be scanned.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scoping detail front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and why to call it. Minor gap: no indication of result ordering, scale, or how errors are represented, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description implicitly confirms the tool is unprompted and global by not referencing any board identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List boards with errors') and narrows the scope with a concrete parenthetical of what counts as an error (script errors, failed images, missing files). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the unfiltered list_boards sibling.

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?

'Use it to check your edits did not break a board' gives a clear triggering context (post-edit verification). It stops short of naming list_boards as the alternative for the unfiltered case or stating when not to reach for this tool.

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