Get List Flow

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default behavior (last 7 days), the date range options (since/before or days), and the factual scope ('factual movement-flow signal only'). This goes beyond a basic summary, though it does not mention pagination or maxActions behavior that could affect results.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. The second sentence adds a precise caveat about what the tool does not do. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to filter, default behavior, and interpretive boundaries. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, without needing to enumerate return fields since the schema handles that.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the convenience relationship between days and since/before, and the default when neither is provided. This is not explicitly in the schema for each parameter, making the description more than just a repeat.

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's function: 'Returns incoming and outgoing card movement counts by Trello list for a date range.' It specifies the resource (Trello lists), the action (counting movements), and the input (date range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card_movements (individual movements) or get_list_changes (list modifications) by focusing on aggregate movement flow.

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?

Provides clear use case: 'Useful for seeing where card movement concentrates.' It also gives an explicit when-not: 'does not identify bottlenecks, throughput, or performance; that interpretation is left to the caller.' However, it does not name alternative tools for those interpretations, so it stops short of a full 5.

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