list_cards

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints at result-size management ('keep large lists small'). It does not describe the default open-only filtering behavior, pagination semantics, permission requirements, or what the returned cards look like, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence: usage condition first, parameter advice second. There is no filler and nothing is buried.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the performance-relevant knobs, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining omission is sibling routing (board_cards, member_cards) and confirmation of the open-only default.

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 every one of the six parameters is already documented with defaults, bounds, and formats. The description only echoes the parameter names with a sizing rationale and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names the resource (cards) and its scope (a specific Trello list), so an agent can tell it reads cards belonging to one list rather than a board or member. It never states the verb (list/retrieve) explicitly, relying on the tool name, and does not name a sibling like board_cards or member_cards to sharpen the distinction.

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 you need cards in a specific Trello list' gives a clear triggering condition, and the second clause advises using limit/since/before/fields to keep large lists small, which is actionable operational guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (board_cards, member_cards) or stating when not to use it.

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