jira_board_issues

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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List issues') and specifies the output format (YAML). However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs or any additional side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read 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 extremely concise, consisting of three sentences that pack essential information: function and scope, optional filter, alternative tool, and mirror command. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, scope, optional filtering, output format, and alternatives. It could optionally describe the return value structure, but it is not essential for agent invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Accepts an optional JQL filter', which is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on the board_id or limit parameters beyond what the schema provides, so no significant additional meaning is added.

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 function: 'List issues on a JIRA agile board'. It specifies the scope ('every issue on the board, across its backlog and all its sprints'), uses a specific verb+resource combination, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'jira_sprint_issues'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to list all issues on a board) and when not to (for a single sprint's issues, use jira_sprint_issues). This is a clear and direct alternative recommendation.

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