list_cards

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions 'compact projection' but does not define which fields are returned or how pagination works. No statement about read-only behavior, rate limits, or side effects; only the verb implies a read operation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and efficiently mentions filters and output. Both sentences earn their place with no fluff.

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 22 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context: no explanation of filter combination, ordering default, pagination behavior, or the composition of 'compact projection'. This is insufficient for a tool with such complexity, leaving agents to guess at 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%, so each parameter is already described. The tool description adds only 'full-text query' and 'compact projection', but the former is redundant with the query param and the latter is about output, not parameters. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cards'), and mentions the primary filters (board, column, full-text query). It clearly distinguishes from get_card which fetches a single card, and other list_ tools target different resources. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 indicates optional filters but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_card or other list_ tools. It lacks guidance on combinational semantics (AND/OR) or when not to use it. Since it's the only tool for listing cards, the purpose is implicit but not fully explicit.

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