trello_get_board_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering' and 'detailed information like attachments and members', but it does not disclose key behavioral traits such as the default filter being 'open' (contradicts 'all cards'), potential pagination limits, or the exact return format. This is a significant gap for a read tool with no output 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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words, and every phrase contributes meaning. The length is appropriate for an MCP tool summary.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides a high-level overview but omits details about default filter behavior, pagination, and the structure of returned card data. The schema compensates for parameter semantics, but the overall context is only minimally complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only summarizing that filter/attachments/members are optional and provide detailed info. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all cards from a Trello board'), clearly indicating the board-level scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_card (single card) and trello_get_list_cards (cards from a list), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use trello_get_list_cards for cards in a list' or 'use get_card for a specific card'. The only implied usage is for retrieving all cards from a board, which is insufficient for selecting among siblings.

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