Kanbai — public project templates and SOPs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that only public SOPs are accessible and that the full content is included. However, it does not mention what happens if the id is invalid, nonexistent, or refers to a non-public SOP.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key points—single item, public scope, retrieval intent, numeric id, full content—are all front-loaded and directly useful to an agent.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it says what resource is acted on, how it is identified, and what the response includes. It could add edge-case behavior (not found, non-public id) to be fully complete, but the low complexity makes the omission minor.

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 schema already fully describes the id parameter as an integer SOP id with an exclusiveMinimum of 0, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'numeric id' wording adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, staying at the baseline for covered parameters.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('one public SOP'), and the identifying input ('numeric id'), and specifies that the full content is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: it is singular and specific to SOPs, not templates and not a list operation.

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 makes the intended context clear: use this when you need one specific public SOP's full content, given its numeric id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the singular focus provide enough implicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the template is public (accessibility scope), that the task list is ordered (ordering guarantee), and specifies the task fields returned. It does not mention error behavior or template-level fields, but for a simple single-get operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and identifier before detailing the included task list fields. There is no filler, and every phrase adds information relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core return structure (ordered task list fields) and access scope ('public'). It does not enumerate template-level fields or error semantics, but an agent has enough information to select and call the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers the only parameter with a clear description ('Template id.'), integer type, and exclusiveMinimum. The description's 'numeric id' simply restates the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 action ('Get'), a specific resource ('public project template'), an identifier type ('numeric id'), and the key payload ('ordered task list' with fields). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings: list_templates enumerates templates, and get_sop targets a different resource type, so an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a numeric template id and need the full template with its task list. The context is clear, though it does not explicitly name list_templates as the alternative for enumerating templates or state when not to use this tool. Still, the resource-type distinction from sibling tools is evident.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists public SOPs and returns title and category, implying a read-only, likely authentication-free operation. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or any limits, but for a zero-parameter list operation the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds parenthetical detail about the returned fields, making it compact and easy to parse.

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 parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the resource, the return fields, and the 'public' scope. An agent has everything necessary to invoke the tool correctly and understand what it will receive.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero parameters, the description is adequate; it adds useful context by naming the output fields, which is the only relevant semantic information.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'Kanbai's public standard operating procedures', and even indicates the returned fields (title, category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as kanbai_get_sop and kanbai_list_templates by resource type and action.

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 usage is implied: an agent would call this tool when it needs a catalog of Kanbai SOPs. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over kanbai_list_templates or when to follow up with kanbai_get_sop, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals that this is a read-only listing operation on public, non-sensitive content, which is meaningful safety context. It does not mention output format, pagination, ordering, or request-specific constraints, though those gaps are modest for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and output fields, while the second sentence adds relevant clarifying context without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, the resource being listed, the fields returned, and the public/non-sensitive nature of the data. It could explicitly state the output shape (e.g., an array of template objects), but nothing critical is missing for safe invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters and the empty input schema already fully documents that fact. The description therefore does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 4 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 begins with an explicit action verb and resource: 'List Kanbai's public project templates' and even enumerates the returned fields (name, description, task count). It further distinguishes templates from live customer data and from SOP-related siblings, making the tool's scope 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 gives helpful context, noting that templates are reusable public task graphs used to instantiate projects, which implies this tool is for browsing available templates. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of kanbai_get_template or kanbai_list_sops, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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