list_get

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, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, auth/scope requirements, failure behavior for an invalid listId, or pagination. It at least does not imply mutation, which keeps it from scoring 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with 'Use when', with zero redundant or filler content. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what metadata is returned or note that the field list controls the response. As written it is adequate to identify intent but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the default field set and the 'all' keyword. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 description implies a read of a Trello list's metadata for a known listId, but never states the verb explicitly ('retrieve/fetch metadata for a list'). It gives no differentiation from siblings that also surface list data, such as board_lists, list_cards, or card_list.

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 clearly names a trigger context: use before creating cards in a list or changing it. That is genuine when-to-use guidance, though it offers no explicit alternatives (e.g., board_lists for discovering lists when the id is unknown) or when-not conditions.

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