list_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the result is scoped to what the server's configured API token(s) can see, one board per token, and it reports on which boards the 'me' user was found. It stops short of return format/pagination/error behavior, but with annotations present that omission is acceptable.

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, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the use-case clause. The enumeration of returned fields earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what is returned (columns in board order, swimlanes, colors with names/descriptions, members) and how the result is scoped (per configured API token, me-board marking). An agent has enough to call and interpret 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the grading baseline this dimension starts at 4. Nothing in the description could add or misstate parameter meaning, and the schema is empty.

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 (lists KanbanFlow boards) and enumerates the payload scope: columns in board order, swimlanes, colors with team names/descriptions, and members. It is trivially distinguishable from the task-centric siblings (list_tasks, get_task, list_comments, list_time_entries, search_tasks) without opening either schema.

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 learn the boards and to find people by name' gives a clear when-to-use context (discovery/orientation, plus people lookup). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, and there is no sibling that overlaps, so no exclusion is strictly required.

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