trello_get_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 tool 'gets' cards, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 cards in a list'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'all cards' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering options) or the return format, leaving the agent uncertain about results. For a read operation with no structured output, more context on behavior and returns is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the 'list_id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining where to find the list ID or format details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 'Get all cards in a list' clearly states the action (get) and resource (cards in a list), making the tool's purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trello_get_board_cards' or 'trello_get_card', which reduces specificity. However, it's not vague or tautological, as it provides a meaningful overview of the tool's function.

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 sibling tools like 'trello_get_board_cards' for board-level card retrieval or 'trello_get_card' for single card details, leaving the agent without context for selection. There's no indication of prerequisites or exclusions, making usage ambiguous in a multi-tool environment.

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