Get Checklist by Name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the response includes all items and a completion percentage, which is useful. But it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the checklist name is not found), the fact that boardId can override the default board, or any other side effects or limitations, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, effective sentence that packs essential details (complete checklist, items, completion percentage) without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is easily scannable for an agent.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently outlines the primary output (complete checklist with items and completion percentage). However, it omits details about error handling and the optional boardId behavior, which would improve completeness. Still, for a simple retrieval tool, the description provides a solid summary of what to expect.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (name and boardId) with clear descriptions, so parameter semantics are already well-defined. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or format expectations. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantic load.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a complete checklist' with the added specificity of 'by name' and includes the output details (all items and completion percentage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_checklist_items, which retrieves items separately, and find_checklist_items_by_description, which searches by item text rather than retrieving the checklist by its name.

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?

The description implies this tool is used to retrieve a full checklist with aggregated data (items and completion) rather than a partial view, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_checklist_items or get_acceptance_criteria, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as needing an active board.

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