list_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the return format (dict with count, next/previous page URLs, items list) and details item fields, implying a read-only operation. It could be more explicit about non-destructiveness, but overall it provides useful 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 concise and well-structured: a brief opening sentence, an 'Args:' section with clean parameter definitions, and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, specifies their types and defaults implicitly, and describes the return structure in detail. No critical information is missing for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by providing a clear explanation for each of the 7 parameters, including what each filter does (e.g., 'Filter by board column (cell) id') and defaults/max values for page and limit. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'List cards on the board with optional filters,' which specifies the action (list), resource (cards), and scope (on the board). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_cards' and 'find_card' by focusing on listing with filters.

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 explains that filters are optional and lists available filter parameters, implying usage when listing cards with specific criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide guidance on alternatives like 'search_cards' for full-text search.

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