get_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets all lists, implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, default filter behavior (open lists only, as per schema default), or whether archived lists are included. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the key action front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, including the example of workflow columns. No unnecessary words.

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 and high schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by mentioning that the response contains list objects (names, IDs) and that the default filter returns only open lists. However, for a straightforward get tool, it provides sufficient context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it does not improve upon the baseline.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'lists', and provides a concrete example of what the lists represent (workflow columns like 'To Do', 'In Progress', 'Done'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'trello_get_list_cards' which gets cards within a list.

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 gives a specific use case ('Use this to see the workflow columns'), which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternatives like 'trello_filter_lists', which could cause confusion. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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