Get lists on a board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying that only open (non-archived) lists are returned, in board order, and reveals the exact return fields (id, name, position). This directly supports correct usage.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate scope. The second sentence efficiently links to related tools and return value usage, with zero 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?

For a straightforward read-only list tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned (id, name, position), how the parameter is obtained (list_boards), and why the output matters (for create_card/move_card). Missing an output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming the return fields.

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 coverage is 100% with board_id described as 'Board id, as returned by list_boards.' The description repeats this same information without adding new semantics. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('open lists on a Trello board'), and key scope details ('non-archived', 'in board order'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on lists and even references list_boards as the source for board_id.

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 provides clear context: board_id is sourced from list_boards, and the returned list IDs are needed by create_card and move_card. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, the guidance is concrete and implies the appropriate workflow.

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