list_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists cards, implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, limits, or whether it returns all cards. Adequate but with gaps.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, no wasted words. It is concise but could be slightly better structured (e.g., separate sentences for each mode) to improve readability.

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?

Given no annotations and an output schema (content unknown), the description covers basic usage but omits edge cases like when both parameters are provided. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (implied) or if it returns all cards without pagination.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter: list_id filters to one column, board_id gets all cards on a board, and default board behavior is implied. This adds meaning beyond the schema's null defaults.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'cards', and explicitly distinguishes two modes: filtering by list_id for a single column or board_id for all cards on a board. This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_card' (single card) or 'create_card'.

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 clear guidance on how to use each parameter: 'Pass list_id for one column, or board_id (or default board) for all cards on a board.' It gives context for two use cases but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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