list_project_cards

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 mentions 'filtering and ordering' but only gives details for three filter parameters, leaving pagination, default ordering, state filtering, and other behaviors unexplained. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or the read-only nature explicitly, though 'List' implies read.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The three parameter notes are each a single line, adding value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place with clear, focused information.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain the majority of parameters, including pagination, ordering choices, state filtering, and search, leaving users to guess their semantics. The description covers only a fraction of the tool's capabilities.

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 must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does explain three parameters (number, assignee_ids, label_names) with concrete examples, but nine other parameters remain entirely unexplained, including page, per_page, state, order_by, order_direction, search_key, category_name, and workspace_id. This partial coverage is insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cards'), and scopes it to 'a specific project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_cards, list_epic_cards, and list_triage_cards. The inclusion of 'filtering and ordering' further defines its purpose.

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 clearly implies use for listing cards within a specific project, providing context for when it should be used over the broader list_cards tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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