list-columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that results are cached, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with zero wasted words. Purpose, return value, usage hint, and caching behavior are all front-loaded and precise.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters fully described in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (position, card count) and caching. It doesn't re-explain pagination since the schema covers it, and the open world hint is already in annotations. Minor gap: no mention of the optional parameters' role, but schema handles that.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the mention of output fields (position, card count) provides context for interpreting the results, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists columns on a Favro board, specifies return fields (position and card count), and explains the primary use case (using columnId to filter list-cards). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-boards.

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?

Provides explicit context: use the returned columnId to narrow list-cards to a single column. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear enough that an agent can infer alternatives (e.g., list-boards for boards).

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