list_boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of what comes back (board entry, display name, careers, careers_link) and the fact that a watchlist file backs this data — information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, with the parenthetical field glossary and the alternative-tool note following. The nested parenthetical is slightly clunky, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the notable fields plus the watchlist file location. It leaves ordering, count, or file-format details unspecified, but that is minor for a zero-argument read of a small local list.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object with full coverage, and no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 the boards on the watchlist) and then enumerates the returned fields — entry, display name, careers page, careers_link. It also explicitly separates itself from add_board, remove_board and fetch_jobs, so an agent can pick it without opening any other schema.

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?

"Use it to see what fetch_jobs checks; add_board and remove_board change it" gives a clear use context and routes mutations to the sibling tools. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a statement of prerequisites, but the alternative is named and the selection condition is implied strongly.

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