get_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only 'open' lists are returned, which is a behavioral trait beyond the bare 'get' verb. It also implies a read-only operation through 'Get'. While it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior, these are not critical for a simple get tool, and the description is transparent about its core behavior.

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 of seven words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, communicates the essential scope ('open lists') and target ('on a board'), and contains zero filler. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with one parameter and no complex behavior.

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 is simple: one parameter, a read-only get operation, and an output schema exists (as per context). The description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how the parameter relates. The return structure is presumably documented in the output schema, so the description does not need to elaborate. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented board_id parameter. It does so by stating the lists are 'on a board,' which connects the parameter to the object being queried. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (which just says board_id is a string). The description does not explain board_id format or where to find it, but for a single straightforward parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all open lists on a board'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_list, archive_list, or get_cards. It precisely defines the scope (open lists) and the containing entity (board), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to retrieve open lists for a specific board. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for closed lists use X'), but the context is clear enough relative to sibling tools. The qualifier 'open' also signals that it does not return archived/closed lists, which is a useful usage hint.

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