Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_cardC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Creates' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, error conditions, or rate limits. The return type is mentioned but without output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized for the basic information it provides, though it could be more comprehensive given the parameter gap.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a creation tool with 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It documents only 3 parameters and provides minimal behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for proper tool usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only documents 3 parameters (list_id, name, desc) while the actual schema has 12 parameters in the payload object. The description fails to mention critical parameters like idBoard, closed, due, idMembers, etc., leaving most parameters undocumented.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Creates a new card') and target resource ('in a given list'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_card' or 'create_list', which would require a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_card' for modifying existing cards or 'create_list' for creating lists. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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

• update_cardC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Updates a card's attributes' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified attributes, rate limits, or error conditions. The return type is mentioned but not explained.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. The first sentence states the purpose directly. However, the **kwargs documentation is overly vague given the complexity of the actual payload parameter, representing a missed opportunity for more meaningful guidance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex object with 12 attributes), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It mentions the return type but doesn't explain it, and provides minimal guidance on the complex payload parameter that represents most of the tool's functionality.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'card_id' and '**kwargs' but doesn't explain what attributes can be updated, their formats, or constraints. The payload parameter with 12 possible attributes is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates a card's attributes' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_checkitem' or 'update_checklist' that also update different Trello entities, leaving room for potential confusion about when to use each update tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing card_id), doesn't differentiate from other update tools (update_checkitem, update_checklist, update_list), and offers no context about when this tool is appropriate versus creating or deleting cards.

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

• add_checkitemC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add a new item'), which is useful, but fails to mention critical details such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary verbosity. A slight improvement in front-loading key behavioral details could make it perfect.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses important contextual elements like error cases, side effects, and return value details, which are crucial for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't provide deeper context, such as format examples for 'checklist_id' or how 'pos' affects ordering, leaving some semantic gaps. This compensates partially but not fully for the low schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a new item to a checklist.' It specifies the verb ('Add') and resource ('item to a checklist'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_checklist' or 'update_checkitem', which would be needed for a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'add_checkitem' over 'create_checklist' or 'update_checkitem', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing checklist. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• create_board_labelC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a mutation, the description doesn't cover important aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions the return type ('TrelloLabel') but doesn't describe the response format or potential side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary repetition. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed return information. This is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description lists parameters (board_id, name, color) and their purposes, which adds meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap—for example, it doesn't explain that 'color' can be null or provide format details. With 2 parameters and partial coverage, this meets the baseline for minimal viability.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create label for a specific board.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('label for a specific board'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_board_labels' or other creation tools, which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing board access), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_board_labels' for retrieval or other creation tools for different resources. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• delete_cardC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a card, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't describe consequences (e.g., irreversible removal, effects on associated items like checklists), permissions required, error conditions, or what the response dict contains. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core action ('Deletes a card.') and uses a structured format for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. However, the Returns section is vague ('The response from the delete operation'), which adds little value and could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like side effects, success/error responses, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., what happens to checklists on a deleted card). For a mutation tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('card_id') and states it's 'The ID of the card to delete', which clarifies the purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Card Id' title. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but insufficient detail (e.g., no format examples like numeric vs. string IDs). The baseline is 3 since the schema lacks descriptions, but the tool compensates only partially.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a card'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete_checkitem' or 'delete_checklist' by specifying the card resource. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context (e.g., Trello-like board management) the card belongs to, which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing card), exclusions (e.g., not for archived cards), or relationships with sibling tools like 'delete_list' or 'update_card'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• update_checklistC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions the return format, but fails to describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are partial or complete, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, error conditions, or rate limits. The return format mention is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with minimal waste. The Args/Returns formatting helps organization, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers basic parameter identification and return format but misses critical context: error handling, permission requirements, update semantics (partial vs. complete), and what 'pos' actually means. The description doesn't compensate sufficiently for the lack of structured metadata.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all three parameters (checklist_id, name, pos) with basic explanations, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., format of checklist_id, what 'pos' represents, length limits for name), leaving significant gaps in understanding despite covering all parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing checklist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_checklist' by specifying it updates existing items rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't specify what aspects beyond name and position can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_card' or 'update_list', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing checklist ID. While it's clear this updates checklists specifically, there's no context about when this operation is appropriate versus other update operations in the system.

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

• delete_checklistB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated checkitems, or error conditions. The return value description ('The response from the delete operation') is too vague to be helpful.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise with three focused sentences. The purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by parameter and return value documentation. No wasted words, though the return value description could be more informative.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: deletion consequences, error handling, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context by specifying that 'checklist_id' identifies 'The ID of the checklist to delete.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what the bare schema provides. However, it doesn't explain format requirements or where to obtain this ID.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a checklist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete_card' or 'delete_list' by specifying the checklist resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_checkitem' which operates on a different but related resource.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid checklist_id), consequences of deletion, or when to use this versus updating a checklist. With siblings like 'delete_card' and 'delete_list' available, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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

• create_checklistB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the tool creates a checklist and returns data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral context, error cases, or return value structure, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds basic semantics for all three parameters (e.g., 'card_id' is for the card to create the checklist on, 'name' is the checklist name, 'pos' specifies position options), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't provide detailed examples or constraints beyond what's implied, such as format for 'pos' values or length limits for 'name'.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Create a new checklist') and the target resource ('on a card'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_checkitem' or 'create_card', which would require more context about when to use each.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_checkitem' (for adding items to an existing checklist) or 'create_card' (for creating a card first). It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as needing an existing card, though this is implied by the 'card_id' parameter.

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

• get_checklistB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format details beyond 'Dict'. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more seamlessly, but it's efficient and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like error cases or response structure. For a simple read tool, this is borderline viable but leaves gaps in completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying that 'checklist_id' is used to retrieve a specific checklist, which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic type definition. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could be enhanced with details like ID format or sourcing.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('checklist by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling read operations like 'get_board' or 'get_card', which might also retrieve specific items by ID, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its specific scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid checklist ID), compare it to sibling tools like 'get_checklists' (if it existed) for listing multiple checklists, or specify use cases. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• create_listB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if a list with the same name exists. The return type 'TrelloList' is mentioned but not explained. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with parameter explanations is highly readable and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job but has clear gaps. The parameter explanations are excellent, but behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, and the structure of the returned 'TrelloList' object are missing. The description provides minimum viable information but doesn't fully address the complexity of a creation operation in a collaborative tool like Trello.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three parameters: board_id ('The ID of the board to create the list in'), name ('The name of the new list'), and pos ('The position of the new list. Can be "top" or "bottom". Defaults to "bottom"'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, adding meaningful context beyond basic type information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'creates' and the resource 'new list on a given board', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_card' or 'create_board_label' by specifying it creates a list rather than other Trello entities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_checklist' which is a similar sibling tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing board access), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_card' or 'create_checklist'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• delete_checkitemB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a delete operation, implying destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting checklist completion), or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It's front-loaded with the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., deletion consequences) and return value specifics. For a delete tool, more context on safety and outcomes would be beneficial.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists both parameters (checklist_id and checkitem_id) with brief explanations of their roles, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This covers all parameters adequately, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a checkitem from a checklist'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_card or delete_checklist by specifying the exact resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_checkitem, which would be needed for a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the checklist and checkitem IDs), exclusions, or compare with related tools like update_checkitem or delete_checklist. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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

• delete_listB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Archives') and return value, but lacks critical details: it doesn't clarify if archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., cards in the list). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return, but misses behavioral nuances like reversibility or error conditions. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps for safe operation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying 'The ID of the list to close,' which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'List Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this effectively compensates, though it doesn't detail ID format or sourcing.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Archives') and resource ('a list'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_card' or 'delete_checklist' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., list must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot archive already archived lists), or related tools like 'update_list' for other modifications, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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

• get_cardsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens if the list_id is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with an external API.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers basics but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention authentication needs, error handling, or return format details beyond just 'card objects.'

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that list_id identifies 'the list whose cards to retrieve.' Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('all cards in a given list'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_card' (singular) or 'get_board' which retrieves different resources, so it misses the top score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_card' (for a single card) or 'get_board' (which might include cards), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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

• get_listB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise and well-structured with three clear sections: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value description. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose, parameter meaning, and return type, but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for this simple tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'list_id' by explaining it's 'The ID of the list to retrieve,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type information. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules. The baseline would be 3 for high schema coverage, but here the description meaningfully enhances understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific list by its ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_lists' (which likely retrieves multiple lists) or 'get_board' (which might include list information), so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_lists' for retrieving multiple lists or 'get_board' which might include list details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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

• update_checkitemB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output details (only mentions 'Dict: The updated checkitem data' without structure). This is adequate but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'New name for the checkitem', 'New checked state'), clarifying semantics that aren't evident from schema titles alone. However, it doesn't detail the 'pos' parameter's format (e.g., what values are valid for position), leaving a minor gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'checkitem in a checklist', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_card' or 'update_checklist', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes updating a checkitem from those other update operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing checklist and checkitem IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_checkitem' or 'delete_checkitem', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• update_listB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of returning 'The updated list object' hints at output but lacks detail on format or structure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is highly concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns, each with bullet-like formatting. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters effectively but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and detailed output information beyond a high-level return type ('TrelloList'). This leaves gaps for the agent to operate safely and efficiently.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly documents both parameters (list_id and name) with clear semantics: list_id identifies the target list, and name specifies the new value. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making the parameters well-understood.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates the name of a list.' This specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('list'), with the action focused on modifying the name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_card' or 'update_checklist', which have similar naming patterns but target different resources.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid list_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_card' or 'update_checklist'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

• get_boardA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieves') and return type ('TrelloBoard'), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. While 'retrieves' implies non-destructive, explicit safety context would improve transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's core function, and the subsequent lines document input/output semantics without redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics adequately. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning read-only nature or error cases. The return type 'TrelloBoard' is documented but without schema details, leaving some ambiguity about response structure.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'board_id' is 'The ID of the board to retrieve', clarifying the parameter's purpose and relationship to the tool's function. For a single parameter tool, this provides adequate semantic understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific board by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_boards' (plural retrieval) and 'get_board_labels' (different resource). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context through 'by its ID' and the parameter documentation, suggesting this tool is for fetching a single known board. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_boards' for listing multiple boards or 'get_card' for other resources, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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

• get_cardA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'retrieves' a card, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format details beyond mentioning a 'TrelloCard' object.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but omits behavioral context (e.g., error cases, auth needs) and doesn't fully explain the return value beyond naming the object type.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('The ID of the card to retrieve'), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare title. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., length, pattern) or examples, leaving some gaps.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific card by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cards (plural) which likely lists multiple cards. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when you need a single card identified by its ID, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_cards or other retrieval tools. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts is provided.

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

• get_card_checklistsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all checklists'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns partial/full data. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a read operation with minimal structured data, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'card_id' by explaining it's 'The ID of the card to get checklists for,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail format or constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Get all checklists') and target resource ('for a specific card'), using a precise verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_checklist' (singular) by specifying it retrieves multiple checklists associated with a card.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by specifying it's for 'a specific card,' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_checklist' or other card-related tools. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with siblings.

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

• get_listsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' lists, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format details beyond the return type. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Arg and Return sections that are clear and efficient. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response structure, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in varied scenarios.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that board_id identifies 'the board whose lists to retrieve,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title ('Board Id'). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could specify format or constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('all lists on a given board'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_board (which retrieves board details) or get_list (which retrieves a single list). It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by specifying it retrieves lists for a given board, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_board (for board metadata) or get_cards (for cards on the board). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some context gaps.

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

• get_boardsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it retrieves data (implied read-only) and specifies it's for the authenticated user, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all boards' entails (e.g., archived boards). It adds some context but misses key behavioral traits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, though the return description could be integrated more seamlessly. Minimal waste, but slight room for polish.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return type but lacks details on output structure (e.g., board object fields), authentication requirements, or error cases. For a retrieval tool with zero structured metadata, it is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves'), resource ('all boards'), and scope ('for the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_board (singular) and other non-board retrieval tools. It provides a complete purpose statement without being tautological.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by specifying 'for the authenticated user,' which suggests authentication context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_board (singular) or get_cards. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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

• get_board_labelsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Retrieves'), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The return type is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance hints, which would enhance completeness for a read tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that board_id is 'The ID of the board whose labels to retrieve', clarifying the parameter's role. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could specify format or sourcing.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('all labels for a specific board'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_board (which retrieves board details) or get_cards (which retrieves cards), establishing a specific scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by specifying 'for a specific board' via the board_id parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_board (which might include labels) or create_board_label (for adding labels). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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