trello_get_card_actions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention return behavior, or disclose any rate limits. The description adds little beyond the tool name and doesn't clarify what 'activity history' encompasses.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the exact action and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not clarify that the default filter is 'commentCard', meaning by default only comments are returned, not full activity history. The phrase 'activity history and comments' could mislead users into expecting all actions. It also fails to describe the response structure, leaving important usage context missing.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. The tool description mentions 'activity history and comments' but does not elaborate on parameter behaviors such as the default filter or limit, leaving the schema to carry the semantic load.

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 gets activity history and comments for a specific Trello card, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_card (card details) and trello_add_comment (adding comments).

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 a clear use case ('useful for tracking changes and discussions'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention cases where other tools would be more appropriate, so it lacks full differentiation.

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