basecamp_list_card_ids

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 discloses that it returns a specific compact set of fields, that the payload is much smaller than list_cards, and that it always auto-paginates. It does not mention auth requirements or error handling, but for a read-only listing tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient and adds context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every clause adds value (fields, size comparison, use case, pagination). No wasted words.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return fields, the use case for iteration, and the auto-pagination behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately in most scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain project_id or column_id, but the tool name and description ('every card in a column') make them intuitively clear. However, it falls short of fully documenting parameter semantics, so the baseline is 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?

The description clearly states this is a compact card listing tool for a column, returning a specific subset of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling basecamp_list_cards by highlighting the reduced payload and returning only IDs and a few fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says it is the right tool when you just need to walk IDs (e.g., to feed basecamp_get_card in a loop), and contrasts with list_cards by noting the payload is ~5% of that tool. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use it (when full card details are needed).

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