list_triage_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral filter (triage = unassigned to any workspace column), which adds useful context beyond the name. However, it does not mention potential side effects (likely none), permission requirements, or output behavior like pagination, leaving room for more transparency.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word adds meaning, and there is 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?

This is a simple list tool with one parameter, an output schema exists (so return values are documented), and the description clarifies the scope in comparison to siblings. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity, though it could mention whether archived cards are included or if there are any limits.

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?

The schema provides only 'project_id' as an integer with no description (0% coverage). The description adds context by linking this ID to 'a project's triage', which clarifies the parameter's role. Yet it does not specify the required nature or any formatting, so compensation is minimal but sufficient for a simple ID.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'cards in a project's triage', with a clarifying parenthetical 'unassigned to any workspace column'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards and list_project_cards by specifying the triage filter.

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 viewing unassigned cards in a project, but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cards or list_project_cards. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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