Get cards on a board

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details beyond this: default values for include_archived and limit, case-insensitive label matching, and the trimmed return shape (id, name, list, labels, due, url, shortened description). It also points to get_card for full content. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds essential information: filters, source IDs, defaults, return shape, and an alternative tool. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format by listing the trimmed fields and directs users to get_card for full details with comments and checklists. Defaults and filter behavior are specified, making the tool's behavior predictable. The one omission—pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter—is acceptable for a summary list tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats that board_id comes from list_boards and list_id from get_lists, which are already in the schema, and adds only a minor hint that label is a name 'as shown by get_labels'. This is not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 function: 'Get cards on a board' with optional filters. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_card by noting that this returns trimmed results and that get_card provides full card details. It also differentiates from list-related tools by mentioning that board_id, list_id, and label come from other tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use this for boards and optionally narrow by list or label. It names an alternative (get_card) for full card details, and it explains prerequisites by stating that board_id comes from list_boards, list_id from get_lists, and label from get_labels.

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