kaiten_list_card_children

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's main contribution is "Pagination is applied locally" — a non-obvious behavior implying the full child set is fetched and sliced client-side, which matters for large parents. The note that the returned id identifies the child card also clarifies what the caller receives, though it partly overlaps the output 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the required identifier, followed by the two behavioral facts. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return shape, and the local-pagination note covers the most surprising behavior. However, for a tool whose pagination is client-side, the absence of limit/offset defaults and range in either schema or description leaves an agent guessing about result-window semantics.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only documents parent_card_id's role plus the local-pagination behavior that governs limit/offset. It does not state the defaults (limit 25, offset 0), the 1-100 limit range, or that offset skips within the locally fetched set, leaving real ambiguity for the two pagination 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List child cards of parent_card_id") and names the key input inline, so an agent immediately knows this is a read of sub-cards under one parent. It is clearly separable from write-oriented siblings like kaiten_add_card_child and kaiten_remove_card_child, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. kaiten_get_card for the parent itself). The only usage signal is the implied one from the phrase "child cards of parent_card_id", which an agent must infer.

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