Get Upcoming Due Cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are based on current card state rather than action history, excludes complete/archived cards, and sorts by due date. It does not mention potential limitations (e.g., cards without due dates) or permission requirements, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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, immediately states the core function, then adds essential qualifiers and sorting. No redundant wording.

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 4-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers the key behavior: time window, exclusions, data source, and sort order. It lacks discussion of edge cases (e.g., cards without due dates) but is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the default value context ('default 7') which is also present in the schema, and clarifies filters (not complete/archived), but doesn't add parameter-specific meanings beyond schema definitions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning cards due within a configurable future window, with explicit exclusions (complete, archived) and sorting ('soonest-due first'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_overdue_cards and get_board_cards by noting it uses current board state rather than action history.

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 communicates the intended use case ('cards due within the next N days') and key filters, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it over get_overdue_cards, though explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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