get_agiles

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds the 'all boards' scope but provides no additional behavioral detail such as filtering semantics or instance handling.

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?

Extremely economical: one clear sentence followed by a compact Args line. Every element earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter list operation with a provided output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only missing piece is any distinction from sibling board tools, which is already covered in purpose clarity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does so by explicitly stating that the sole parameter 'instance' is optional and identifies it as a YouTrack instance, which is more than the schema's bare 'Instance' title.

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 verb and resource ('List all agile boards') that clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_agile_board' by emphasizing the plural 'all'. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agile_board, get_sprint_board, or create_agile_board. The optional instance parameter is mentioned but there are no conditions or exclusions.

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