get_agiles

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'list all agile boards' without mentioning read-only nature, authentication, pagination, or performance implications. This is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, but the 'Args:' section merely restates the schema without adding value. It is not wasteful, but could be streamlined or expanded in a more informative way.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description omits details like scope (all boards in instance vs. user), sorting, filtering, and common usage patterns. A listing tool should provide more context for effective use.

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 schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning by labeling 'instance' as a YouTrack instance and optional, but fails to explain allowed values or effect. Schema alone would leave the agent guessing.

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 'List all agile boards' clearly states a verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling 'get_agile_board' which likely gets a specific board. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes an agile board.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agile_board' or search tools. No context on prerequisites, filtering, or when not to use.

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