member_cards

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that private board cards require token access, which is important context an agent would not infer from the schema. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe pagination semantics, or explain the response shape.

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 description is a single tightly written sentence with the primary use case front-loaded and the private-board auth caveat following immediately. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no redundant or bloated language.

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?

Given six parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the use case, identifies the member formats, and notes private-board token requirements. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating that this is a read-only card listing, but the schema covers the parameter details an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including memberId formats, limit bounds, since/before cursors, fields, and filter enum. The description repeats the memberId formats but adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource and scope: cards assigned to a known Trello member, addressable by id, username, or me. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as member_boards, board_cards, and list_cards without requiring the agent to inspect the schema.

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 states when to use the tool: when cards assigned to a known member are needed and the member can be identified. It also adds a prerequisite about token access for private board cards. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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