trello_get_board_cards

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description only restates what the tool does (get cards with filtering) without adding information about pagination, rate limits, authentication (though schema has params), or that it is a read-only operation. It does not go beyond the 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 sentence, concise and to the point. However, it is too brief to cover the tool's capabilities adequately, especially given the complexity of 9 parameters. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, behavior of the 'limit' or 'compact' parameters, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_list_cards'. The agent lacks context to use it effectively.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter definitions. The description adds the context of 'optional filtering and detailed information like attachments and members', which hints at some parameters but does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving all cards from a board with optional filtering and details. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all cards from a Trello board'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_list_cards' which retrieves cards from a specific list, but the board-level scope is implied.

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 like 'get_list_cards' or 'get_card'. It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' language and does not mention any prerequisites or context for decision-making.

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