Get Card Movements

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 only confirmed list-to-list movements are returned and frames results as workflow activity rather than a productivity metric. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination details, but those are standard for a read-only Trello action query and the schema covers pagination via maxActions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and a distinct second sentence for semantic nuance. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only list tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filter options, and semantic caveat. It could add more explicit usage guidance, but it is complete enough given the schema and sibling 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters, including examples for board and since. The description only restates the filter categories (member, card, source list, destination list) without adding additional semantics beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('confirmed list-to-list card movements from a board's action history'), and immediately scopes the operation with optional filters. It distinguishes itself from productivity-oriented siblings by stating 'Workflow activity, not a productivity metric.'

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing confirmed card movements with optional filters) and explicitly cautions that it is workflow activity, not a productivity metric. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusion of productivity use cases gives some guidance.

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