list_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only open cards are returned and that each card is trimmed to a specific triage digest of fields, which goes beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, with the digest detail in a brief second paragraph. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 digest detail and optional filter are helpful, but the description omits usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not clarify the limit parameter's effect. Since an output schema exists, the return shape is less of a gap, but overall the description is not fully complete for an unannotated 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for list_name ('filtered to one list by name') and suggests board as the scope, but it does not explain limit behavior or any constraints on list_name matching.

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 and resource: 'List open cards on a board', distinguishes from siblings like list_board_lists and get_card, and adds the optional list filter. It is immediately clear what the tool produces.

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 through 'optionally filtered to one list by name', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_trello, get_card, or list_board_lists. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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