List Jira boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does communicate that this is a read-only listing operation. However, it does not mention return shape, pagination behavior, or what board fields are returned, which are useful behavioral details for a list endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose and all key filter options with no redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the basics of a list call, but without annotations or an output schema it omits what the response looks like and how pagination behaves for the startAt/maxResults parameters. For a five-parameter tool, this leaves some context for the agent to infer.

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 description paraphrases the schema's named filters (type, name, project key/ID) and confirms the one-project-key constraint, but it adds little beyond the existing schema descriptions. startAt and maxResults are left undocumented in both spots, so the 60% schema coverage is only partially compensated.

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 and resource — "List Jira agile boards" — and narrows scope with "scrum or kanban." It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_board or list_sprints.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to list Jira boards, with optional filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the filter options communicate the expected use cases without ambiguity.

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