board_lists

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It implies a read-only retrieval and mentions the 'known board' precondition, but it omits permissions, error behavior, and other operational details, leaving it at minimum viable.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The use case and downstream purpose are both expressed without wasted words.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and tells the agent what to extract (the list id). It does not explain return fields, but the narrow purpose makes that a minor gap.

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 fully documents boardId, fields, and filter. The description only reinforces the board scope and adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as lists on a known Trello board and ties it to a concrete outcome: finding the right list id. It distinguishes the tool from card-level siblings through the board/list scope, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It says exactly when to use it ('when you need the lists on a known Trello board') and what downstream actions it supports ('before listing or creating cards'). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming sibling alternatives like list_cards or card_create.

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