get_agile_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves boards but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it returns all boards at once or requires pagination). This is a significant gap for a read operation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a usage note. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no output schema, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on output format or behavioral context. It adequately covers the purpose but could benefit from more transparency, as noted in other dimensions.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or default behaviors, meeting 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 specific action ('Get all agile boards') and resource ('available in the Jira instance'), and distinguishes its purpose from siblings by mentioning it's 'required to find board IDs for sprint operations,' which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Required to find board IDs for sprint operations'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_sprints' or 'get_projects,' for related tasks.

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