list_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the list behavior and some parameter semantics (state open/closed, category_name as column name), but omits behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default sort order, or that this is a read-only operation with no side effects.

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 and well-structured: a leading one-sentence summary followed by a compact list of filters and ordering instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant content.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, many filters), the description is partially complete: it covers most filters and ordering, but misses pagination parameters and does not explain whether filters are combined with AND/OR logic. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but usage guidance for this broad tool is still lacking.

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 the schema having 0% description coverage, the description compensates by listing most parameters and adding meaning beyond the schema, such as 'number' being a visible card number, 'category_name' being a column name, and 'state' being open/closed. However, it omits page and per_page pagination parameters, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 tool lists cards (issues/PRs) with optional filters, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling listing tools like list_project_cards, list_triage_cards, or list_epic_cards, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context by enumerating available filters and order options, implying this is a general-purpose listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions like 'use list_project_cards for project-scoped lists.'

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