card_labels

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. "Listing" implies a read operation and the mention of label ids signals the payload shape, but there is no statement about read-only semantics, behavior for invalid/unknown card ids, or pagination — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema.

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?

One sentence, no waste, and the usage trigger is front-loaded. It is slightly indirect ("Use when listing..." rather than "Lists labels on a card"), which costs a point on directness but not on efficiency.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, and the description covers purpose and the add/remove follow-up use case. The main missing piece is an explicit read-only/return-shape statement, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the single cardId parameter is fully documented in the schema as accepting an id, short link, or Trello card URL. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: listing the labels currently applied to a card. It adds the useful detail that label ids are returned, which separates it from label_get and board_labels, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Use when listing the labels currently applied to a card" gives a clear triggering condition and the add/remove workflow framing implicitly routes the agent away from card_label_add/card_label_remove. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., board-wide label catalogs via board_labels).

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