list_board_cards

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it uses the 'dedicated cards route' and supports 'search filters', but says nothing about pagination behavior, default limits, or result ordering despite the complex schema.

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 with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, for a 43-parameter tool it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, so conciseness comes at the cost of needed detail.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return values and read-only behavior need not be repeated. But with 43 mostly undescribed input parameters and no usage guidance, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without extensive schema inspection.

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 tool has 43 parameters with only 7% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate heavily. It mentions only generic 'search filters' and does not explain any specific parameter such as board_id, limit, query, states, or pagination offsets, leaving the agent with almost no semantic guidance beyond the schema names.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('cards on a board'), and adds scope ('via the dedicated cards route, with search filters'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_cards or list_space_cards, which also list cards under different scopes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_cards or list_space_cards. The phrase 'with search filters' hints at filtering capability but does not explain when this route is preferable or what conditions select it.

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