list_board_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that closed lists are excluded, results follow board order, and card counts are included. It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior, but for a simple read/list operation the described behavior is unusually specific and useful.

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?

One sentence, under 15 words, front-loads the verb and resource, and packs three useful qualifiers: open, board order, card counts. No waste.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter) and has an output schema, so return details need not be described here. The main missing piece is the accepted format/value of the 'board' parameter, which weakens completeness for actually invoking the tool correctly.

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 single param 'board' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description only says 'on a board'. It does not specify whether the board identifier should be an ID, URL, shortLink, or name, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('lists/columns on a board'), and adds scope ('open'), ordering ('in board order'), and content ('with card counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as list_boards, get_board_info, and list_cards.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need the open lists/columns for a specific board with their card counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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