kaiten_list_card_external_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond them: pagination is applied locally, meaning the upstream response is fetched and sliced client-side. It stops short of describing ordering or what happens when the card has zero links, but the added context is real value.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety semantics. Between the distinctness clause and the local-pagination note, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly, though a brief note on ordering or behavior on cards with no links would close the remaining gap.

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 bears the burden of explaining all three parameters. It partially compensates by explaining that limit/offset are applied locally (implying client-side slicing rather than server-side paging), but it says nothing about defaults, bounds, or the card_id requirement. With no coverage from the schema, this is only partial compensation.

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 native external links on a card') and adds a disambiguating clause ('distinct from custom properties') that steers the agent away from the conceptually adjacent kaiten_list_custom_properties. It does not name any sibling tool by name, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation, but an agent can still tell what this retrieves.

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 'distinct from custom properties' clause implies the appropriate use case (native link entities rather than property values), and the sibling set makes the read-vs-mutate split obvious. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to kaiten_add_card_external_link or kaiten_update_card_external_link as related operations, so the guidance is only implied.

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