list_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a non-destructive read ('List'), and specifies the return format ('Dictionary containing all cards with their metadata'). This is sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value: the first describes purpose, the second describes return value.

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 no parameters and a simple list-all behavior, the description fully covers purpose and output. The presence of an output schema is implied by the return description, and no additional context is needed.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage is 100% trivially). The description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 action as 'List' and the resource as 'saved questions/cards in Metabase'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_card or execute_card by focusing purely on retrieval.

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 usage as a simple listing tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_dashboard_cards or search queries. The purpose is clear, but differentiation from similar tools is not addressed.

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