list_boards

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns id/name/description, is scoped to a project, and serves as the boardId discovery path. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not mention pagination behavior.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core action and output fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's unique discovery role among sibling tools.

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 read-only list endpoint with one required parameter, the description covers the output fields, project scoping, and the main reason to call it. It does not explicitly describe pagination or how to get a projectId, but the schema documents page/limit defaults and the tool's role is clear. A small gap remains.

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 documents page and limit with default values, covering 67% of parameters. The description reinforces that projectId refers to the containing project but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema for that required parameter or the pagination fields.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'boards inside a project', and the returned fields 'id, name, description'. It also differentiates this tool from other board tools by explaining that it is the way to discover a boardId without a URL.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the discovery mechanism for boardId and notes that every other board tool requires it, which tells an agent when to use this tool. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or explain how to obtain the required projectId first, but the core usage context is clear.

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