Listar cards de um quadro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the default result excludes concluded cards, the endpoint changes with the concluidos flag, and filters combine with AND while array filters combine with OR. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences deliver the essential guidance with no filler: the core action, the default endpoint behavior, the concluidos variant, and the filter combination rule are all front-loaded and compact.

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 a read-only list operation with 16 parameters, the description covers the most decision-relevant behavior: default scope, the concluded-cards switch, and filter semantics. It does not describe the response shape or pagination behavior, but the schema already documents page/per_page and the annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining cross-parameter behavior: filters combine with AND and array-valued filters (membro_id, etiqueta_id, coluna_id) combine with OR. It also maps concluidos=true to a different endpoint, which is not inferable from the parameter description alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lista cards de um quadro B-Ticket') and further narrows the scope by naming the default endpoint for active columns and the concluded-cards endpoint. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like bticket_list_tickets and bticket_list_my_open_cards.

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?

It states when to use the default active-columns call versus setting concluidos=true to hit the concluded-cards endpoint. It also explains how filters compose, giving clear operational context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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