card_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states that this is a read-only lookup, what shape the 'board relationship' comes back in, or whether the optional fields parameter changes the payload — all left to inference.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the usage condition and free of filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why purpose and return value stay implicit.

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 simple two-parameter read lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say what comes back. It conveys the usage moment but leaves the return value and the effect of 'fields' unexplained, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both cardId and fields fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 names the resource ('board relationship for a known Trello card'), which is more specific than the bare name 'card_board', but the verb is implicit ('when you need') rather than stating plainly that it returns the board a card belongs to. With sibling tools like card_get, card_list, and board_get available, it does not sharply delineate what this returns versus those.

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 gives concrete triggering contexts — before moving, labeling, or summarizing a card's context — which tells an agent when this lookup is warranted. It stops short of naming an alternative or when-not-to-use condition, so it lands just under the top score.

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