planka_list_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read-only listing ('List all cards') and clarifies the aggregation behavior ('collected from each board included'). However, it does not disclose potential performance implications of listing all cards across all boards, whether the result is paginated, or whether it includes cards from archived boards. The core behavior is transparent, but edge-case behavior is not.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with a parenthetical clarification that adds useful detail without bloat. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what it does and the scope. However, it does not mention whether the result includes cards from all boards regardless of board visibility/archival status, nor does it describe the output format (though no output schema exists, so the description could have added value by noting the return shape). Given the simplicity of the tool, the missing details are minor but still leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool meets a user's request.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document). The description adds meaning by explaining the scope of the operation ('all cards in the workspace') and the aggregation method ('collected from each board included'). Since there are no parameters, the description's clarification of scope is the only semantic content needed, and it provides it.

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 ('List all cards') and the scope ('in the workspace'), and adds a clarifying parenthetical that cards are collected from each board. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like planka_read_cards (which likely reads a specific card) and planka_list_boards (which lists boards, not cards). It could be slightly more explicit about the difference from planka_read_cards, but the verb+resource+scope is clear.

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 implies a broad, workspace-wide listing use case, which is distinct from reading a single card or listing boards. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus planka_read_cards or planka_list_boards, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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