list_cards

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

The description implies a read-only enumeration by using 'list' and describing the output, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, ordering, staleness, or access requirements. With no annotations, more explicit behavioral context would have been helpful, though the read-only nature is reasonably inferable.

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 concise phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the core entity ('open card') and immediately lists the included attributes, making it 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the scope ('every open card'). Some domain terms like 'open card' and 'closure limits' could be more explicit, but the output schema can fill in return-shape details, and no parameters require further explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on what the returned data represents instead of parameter syntax.

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 resource ('every open card') and the returned attributes (subunits, matrix sizes, closure limits). It avoids tautology, though it relies on the tool name for the verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_endpoints or list_routes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as list_endpoints, list_routes, subunit_state, and chassis_identify, the agent gets no explicit direction on when list_cards is the right choice.

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