list_boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at a caveat by saying 'attempt to list all boards,' implying that omitting space_id may not always succeed. However, it does not disclose why or what happens on failure, missing deeper behavioral details.

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 that conveys both usage modes with no wasted words. It is concise and structured well for quick parsing.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. The 'attempt' caveat hints at limitations but does not fully explain them, leaving a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the space_id behavior ('recommended. Omit to attempt listing all boards'). The description restates this, adding little beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists boards, with an optional space filter, distinguishing it from siblings like get_board (single board) and create_board. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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?

It explains when to pass space_id and when to omit it, providing clear context for the two usage modes. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or list exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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