Get Stale Cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals specific recognized activity types, the default staleDays threshold, and critically explains the historyComplete: false fallback when action history cannot be fully scanned. It also clarifies that staleness does not imply blockage, adding important context beyond the raw schema. This is exemplary transparency.

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 exactly two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second clarifies caveats. There is no fluff or repetition of schema 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 read-only list tool with a rich output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, default behavior, edge cases (incomplete history), and a key behavioral nuance (stale vs. blocked). No critical information is missing given the 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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters (board, listId, memberId, staleDays, maxActions). The description adds a little extra context (e.g., default staleDays value and activity types) but does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 returns open cards with no recognized activity for at least staleDays. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('open cards'), and defines what counts as 'recognized activity' (creation, list move, archive/unarchive). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_overdue_cards, the concept of 'stale' is distinct and the description is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context about what the tool does and even cautions that 'stale does not imply blocked,' which helps set usage expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_overdue_cards or get_card_movements, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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