list_cards

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the default hiding of archived cards and the effect of include_archived. It also implies the tool is used in conjunction with unarchive/purge actions, providing useful context.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with a key behavioral detail. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essential functionality. It might miss advanced features like pagination or sorting, but for a basic list tool it is sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the include_archived parameter's behavior and use case, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default. It helps the agent understand when and how to use this parameter.

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 it lists a board's cards, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_card (single card) or list_boards (boards) by focusing on listing multiple cards within a board.

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 provides context on when to use include_archived=true (to find unarchive/purge targets), which helps differentiate from tools that modify cards. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or compare to other listing tools.

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