get_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. However, it states 'Get all lists' without mentioning that the default filter is 'open', which could mislead an agent into expecting closed lists. It also doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'), but the filter ambiguity is a more significant gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and includes a helpful illustrative use case. 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 and the schema covers all parameters, but the description omits the default filter behavior and return format. The phrase 'all lists' conflicts with the default 'open' filter, leaving an agent uncertain about expected results. This is a notable completeness gap given no output schema is provided.

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 each parameter described independently. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, so it relies fully on the schema. Baseline 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 tool retrieves lists from a Trello board, with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('lists'), and scope ('in a specific Trello board'). It also provides a concrete use case (seeing workflow columns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_board_details or trello_get_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 description explicitly says to use it to see workflow columns in a board, giving clear when-to-use context. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is sufficient for this simple listing tool.

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