Get Cards by List ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the non-obvious response-shaping behavior: descriptions are previewed by default to keep responses compact, and can be omitted or expanded. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or whether the list must belong to the active board.

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 with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense with parameter names but each clause maps to a distinct behavior, so it earns its space.

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 list-fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape (trimmed cards with previewed descriptions) and the knobs controlling it. It omits pagination, ordering, and result-size limits, which are minor gaps for this tool type.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter strategy the schema does not: setting 'fields' without 'desc' omits descriptions, while raising descMaxLength/omitDescThresholdBytes preserves them. That interaction guidance earns it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (cards), and scope (a specific Trello list on a specific board), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_card, search_cards, and get_my_cards. It also names get_card as the route for full card details, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the alternative path ('use get_card for full details') and explains the default preview behavior that drives that choice. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over search_cards or get_my_cards, so selection guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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