Get Checklist by Name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (items plus completion percentage), but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, ambiguity resolution (the schema recommends cardId to avoid ambiguity), or error behavior when a name matches multiple checklists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to describing the resource and its returned content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields (items, completion percentage). However, for a lookup tool with an ambiguity-prone name parameter and no annotations, it omits scope/permission context and any distinction from sibling checklist readers, leaving clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, cardId, and boardId, including the recommendation to scope by cardId. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('checklist') and clarifies the payload ('all its items and completion percentage'), which distinguishes the output from a bare lookup. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_checklist_items or find_checklist_items_by_description, so the agent must infer why the 'by name' variant is preferable.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or prerequisites. It only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer that this is the name-based lookup path among the several checklist-reading siblings.

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