card_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Current' implies a read, but it does not confirm read-only safety, state permission or rate-limit behavior, or describe the shape of the returned list relationship.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the use case stated first and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool, the description gives enough to understand the basic use case. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the returned 'list relationship' contains and how fields changes the response.

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 cardId and fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail and does not explain how fields affects the returned list relationship, 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 identifies a specific resource relationship—the current list for a known Trello card—and implies retrieval rather than mutation. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic card or list tools, though it never explicitly states that it returns the card's containing list object or identifier.

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 a concrete trigger: use before moving the card or reporting its status. That is clear contextual guidance, but it does not mention alternatives such as card_get, card_board, or list_get, nor any explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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