trello_get_board_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all lists' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination for large boards, error handling (e.g., invalid board_id), or the return format (e.g., JSON array of lists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence ('Get all lists on a board') that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words, avoids redundancy, and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or return structure, which are crucial for a read operation in an API context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by providing more context, but it does not, leaving gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with board_id documented as 'The ID of the board'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, such as where to find the board_id or format examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without extra help from the description.

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 'Get all lists on a board' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('lists on a board'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like trello_get_board_cards or trello_get_list_cards by specifying lists rather than cards or boards. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from trello_get_board (which might include lists) or trello_get_my_boards, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing board access), compare it to trello_get_board (which might return board details including lists) or trello_get_list_cards (for cards within lists), or specify use cases like retrieving lists for organization or filtering. Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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