list_boards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns board id, name, and stages, and that boards are stable. No contradictions; the added context is helpful but does not cover pagination behavior or other traits.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, defining the resource, and providing usage context. No redundant words; efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description does specify return fields (id, name, stages), which is adequate. Pagination is supported but not mentioned. The tool is simple and the context provided is sufficient for selection and basic use.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the pagination parameters (page, perPage) at all. While the parameters are standard and optional, the description misses the opportunity to explain their role, leaving the agent to infer from the schema only.

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 all project boards, explains what a board is (a grouping of stages), and specifies the returned fields (id, name, stages). It differentiates from sibling tool list_pipelines by calling boards the project equivalent of opportunity pipelines.

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 to use this tool to discover boardId when creating a project, and then to use list_stages for stage selection. It notes that boards are stable per account. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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