pio_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 it does a solid job: it states that the tool searches a catalogue, that the query matches id/name/MCU/vendor, and what fields are returned. It does not mention limit, optional filters, or no-result behavior, but these are secondary for a catalogue search.

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 four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds match criteria, return fields, and downstream usage – every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, and the description uses that to avoid restating return types. However, with no schema parameter descriptions and no annotations, the tool should explain the `platform`, `framework`, and `limit` parameters to be fully call-correct; only `query` is meaningfully covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the required `query` parameter with concrete examples, but says nothing about `limit`, `platform`, or `framework`, leaving three of four parameters semantically undocumented.

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 identifies the resource ('PlatformIO's board catalogue (~1,700 boards)') and the operation ('Search'), and it explains what the search matches and returns. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like pio_board_info, so it stops short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 practical context by telling the agent that the returned `id` is used in platformio.ini or pio_project_init, implying the tool is a prerequisite for project setup. It does not explicitly discuss when to avoid this tool or which sibling to choose instead, but the context is clear.

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