Get Cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all cards' without mentioning whether this is read-only (likely but not stated), whether it returns card details or summaries, pagination, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of explicit safety confirmation is a gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns its place with no waste, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 there is an output schema, return values are covered, but the description lacks guidance on parameter semantics, behavioral expectations, and usage context. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is incomplete. An agent would need to infer how to specify board_name and list_name and what 'all cards' means in terms of output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It mentions 'board' and 'list' in the text, which maps to board_name and list_name, but doesn't explain what values are expected (e.g., exact names vs IDs) or how they relate. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all cards in a specific list on a board'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_boards and get_lists. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate it from get_card_details and search_cards.

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 implies when to use it: when you need all cards in a specific list. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_card_details for a single card or search_cards for filtered results. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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