get_member_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The description only says 'Get cards assigned to a member' without mentioning response format, pagination, default fields, whether closed boards are included, or any other behavioral nuances. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No unnecessary information or repetition.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters but only one required, and no output schema. The description explains the high-level purpose but does not clarify the response structure or available options like detailLevel or summarize. Given the richness of the schema, it is somewhat complete but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters, only restating 'member' which aligns with memberIdOrUsername. 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 action ('Get cards') and the target resource ('assigned to a member'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_cards_in_list or get_member_boards. The added phrase 'Use this to see what tasks a member is responsible for' reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to see what tasks a member is responsible for.' It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools. This is sufficient but not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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