list_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions it returns a 'Markdown formatted list of cards' and a default limit of 100, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior under large result sets.

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 concise with a clear docstring structure (Args and Returns). Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted 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?

For a tool with 3 simple optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main action, parameters, and return format. It could mention if there is pagination or a maximum limit beyond the default, but overall it is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: 'Optional collection ID to filter by', 'Optional database ID to filter by', and 'Maximum number of cards to return (default 100)'. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'List saved questions (cards) accessible to the current user', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card, search_cards, and get_card by focusing on listing all accessible cards.

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 for listing cards with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cards. No guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider.

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