list_board_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about sorting and board identification, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits beyond what annotations cover.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second adds key details (board identification and sorting). Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains board identification and sorting, and the schema handles defaults and search details. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the default for includeArchived or the range for limit, but overall it is adequate.

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?

Although the input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), the tool description enhances the board parameter by specifying it accepts _id or exact name, which is more detailed than the schema's 'a string that will be trimmed'. It also adds sorting info not present in any parameter. This adds meaningful value 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 clearly states the tool lists cards on a specific board, specifying that board can be given by _id or exact name, and that results are sorted newest modified first. It is specific and actionable, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_cards' which might serve a different scope.

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 guidance on how to specify the board parameter (by _id or name) and the sorting order, but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_board_card for a single card, or list_cards across boards). The annotations indicate it is safe to call.

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