planka_read_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it is an alias, without describing read-only nature, output format, or any side effects. This is severely lacking for a tool that mutates nothing but still needs behavioral context.

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 one short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too sparse to be helpful; it merely references another tool without providing any operational detail. It is not verbose, but it lacks substance.

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 an alias tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the alias does, what it returns, or any limitations. An agent would need to look up planka_list_cards to understand behavior, which is not provided in this definition.

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, so there is no parameter burden. The schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 states it is an alias of planka_list_cards, which implies it reads cards, but it does not directly describe what that does. An agent must infer the purpose from the sibling name or look up the referenced tool, making it somewhat clear but not self-contained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. As an alias, it presumably shares usage with planka_list_cards, but that is not stated. There is no mention of when to prefer this over the original or other read tools.

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