list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists boards accessible with the current API key, returns id, title, and public URL, and explains the URL-to-ID mapping utility. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' but the list semantics imply no side effects. Some detail like pagination or error cases is missing, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second sentence explains the return fields and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clear.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (list boards, fields returned, and the URL-to-ID lookup scenario). It is complete for its complexity, though it omits edge cases like pagination, which are not critical for this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional semantic value is needed since there are no inputs to explain.

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 uses a specific verb ('반환한다' / returns) and resource ('보드(Padlet) 목록' / board list), and clearly states the scope ('현재 API 키로 접근 가능한' / accessible with current API key). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by mentioning the 16-digit board ID used in get_board, showing this tool provides the mapping between URL and ID.

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 a clear use case: when you only know a padlet.com URL, use this list to compare web_url and find board_id. This implicitly tells the user when to use list_boards, though it does not explicitly say 'use get_board when you already have the ID'.

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