Get Top Card Movers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default date range and the type of metric (workflow activity), but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the output structure. The lack of mention of side effects or return format is a gap, but the description does add meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 primary action, and every word earns its place. The second sentence provides a crucial nuance about the metric's intended use, with zero redundancy.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description adequately explains the core functionality, date handling, and metric semantics. It leaves out details about pagination limits and exact ranking criteria, but those are partially captured by schema parameter descriptions and output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 default behavior when no date range is provided ('default last 7 days') and clarifying that the 'days' parameter is a convenience alternative to since/before. This goes beyond the schema's param descriptions.

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 purpose: it ranks board members by list-to-list card movements within a date range. The verb 'ranks' combined with the specific resource (board members) and metric (card movements) is precise. It also distinguishes itself from general activity tools by noting it measures workflow activity (cardsMoved) rather than productivity.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when analyzing card movement activity on a Trello board. It explains the convenience of the 'days' parameter and the default behavior (last 7 days). While it does not name alternative sibling tools, it clarifies the metric's scope, giving adequate guidance for appropriate use.

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