trello_get_card_actions

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

The description discloses the tool's read-only nature and what it returns (activity history and comments). However, with no annotations provided, it could be more informative about default filters, pagination, or ordering. The current description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second provides a use case. Every part is relevant.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of returned actions, default order, or how to interpret results, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely implying the need for a card ID and optional filters. No additional semantics are provided.

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 action ('Get activity history and comments') and the target resource ('specific Trello card'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like trello_get_card_attachments or trello_get_card_checklists.

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 phrase 'Useful for tracking changes and discussions' provides implied context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like trello_get_card (which fetches card details) or trello_add_comment (for adding comments).

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