list_create

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 and discloses almost nothing: it does not say the operation is a write/mutation, what permissions are required, where the list lands by default, whether duplicate names are allowed, or what the call returns. The only non-obvious behavior, that the target board must already exist, is present, which keeps it above a 1.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it leads with "Use when" rather than stating the action, and one terse sentence leaves obvious gaps, so brevity here reads more like under-specification than disciplined conciseness.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn about mutation semantics, error conditions and return behavior — and it says nothing about any of them. The schema covers parameter meaning well, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before writing to a board is missing.

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 boardId, name and pos (including the top/bottom/number union and default 'bottom') are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that boardId must reference an existing board and adds no format, syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so 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 sentence names the verb (creating), the resource (a new Trello list) and the constraint (on an existing board), so an agent can tell this creates rather than updates, archives, moves or reads lists. It is phrased as a usage trigger rather than a purpose statement, and it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_update or list_move_to_board, so it falls short of 5.

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 creating a new Trello list on an existing board" gives an implied trigger, which is more than nothing. But there is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g. when the list already exists, or when the board is not yet created via board_create) and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or board membership.

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