jira_board_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating 'Returns YAML' and referencing the CLI mirror. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention ordering, errors, or permission requirements. The verb 'List' implies a safe read, but that is not made explicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The filter mention and YAML return type are both essential; the CLI mirror reference is a compact, useful pointer. No wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with an exhaustive schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose, filters, and output format. It lacks an explicit read-only statement, but the verb 'List' suffices. The missing guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools is a minor gap, already partially addressed by purpose clarity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for all three parameters, including the limit semantics ('0 means unlimited'). The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by project key and/or board type' adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List JIRA agile boards' – a specific verb + resource – and further clarifies optional filters by project key and board type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_board_issues (lists issues on a board) and jira_project_list (lists projects).

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 clear context: it lists boards with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the action is self-evident. The presence of sibling tools like jira_board_issues implies the contrast, yet the description does not spell it out.

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