jira_board_list

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

The description only mentions the return format (YAML) and filtering options but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions required, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the agent lacks awareness of potential constraints.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys purpose, filtering capability, return format, and a reference command without unnecessary words.

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 description does not explain the return structure (what fields each board object has) or pagination behavior despite the limit parameter. With no output schema, the agent has insufficient information to interpret results beyond 'YAML'.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value by repeating the filter options and giving examples of board types (scrum/kanban) already present in the schema. No new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists JIRA agile boards, specifying that it can be optionally filtered by project key and board type. It also provides a reference to a CLI command, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_board_issues or jira_project_list.

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 implies usage for listing boards with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_board_issues or jira_search. It lacks guidance on when not to use or which sibling to prefer in certain scenarios.

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