Get Board Cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns raw card data with specific fields (list, members, due date) and states it does not perform overdue/analytics computation. This adds behavioral clarity beyond the schema, though it omits details like pagination or default closed-card behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, input, and return characteristics without redundancy or fluff. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input identification, return data, and scope exclusions. Minor omissions like pagination or ordering are not critical for this tool's complexity.

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 with both parameters (board, includeClosed) described in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool 'Get the cards on a Trello board' with specific identification methods (ID, shortLink, URL) and return content (list, members, due date). The explicit 'no overdue/analytics computation' distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like get_overdue_cards and get_upcoming_due_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?

The description implies usage for raw card retrieval by stating it returns raw data and explicitly excludes analytics. This provides a clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exhaustive when-not scenarios.

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