list_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the discovery role, which is useful context beyond the annotations. Pagination behavior is not described, but the page/limit parameters make it inferable.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence that covers the verb, resource, output fields, and the key usage rationale. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool, the description is complete: it names what is returned, identifies the required parent scope, and explains why the tool is needed. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the return fields, while schema and annotations cover parameters and safety.

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 100%, so the meaning of projectId, page, and limit is already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit 'inside a project' scope, so the baseline score 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?

States a specific action ('List'), a precise resource ('boards inside a project'), and the returned fields (id, name, description). The added note that every other board tool needs a boardId clearly differentiates it from the many board-related siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: it is the only way to discover a boardId unless the user provides a URL, and all other board tools depend on that ID. This gives a clear decision rule for using it before board mutations or queries.

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