kaiten_list_card_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: the returned id doubles as member_id and user_id for downstream calls. It says nothing about pagination behavior or the size of the result set, which matters for a list endpoint with limit/offset.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous about which returned field is being referenced, but nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a paginated list tool with three undocumented parameters, the definition leaves the agent guessing about paging defaults and whether results are scoped to a single card.

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 all three parameters (card_id, limit, offset) are documented only by type and default bounds. The description never mentions card_id as the required scoping input nor explains limit/offset, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. The only semantic hint concerns return values, not inputs.

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?

"List card memberships" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the membership resource is clearly separable from the sibling mutators (kaiten_add_card_member, kaiten_remove_card_member, kaiten_update_card_member_role). It stops short of naming those siblings or stating scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 second sentence implies a follow-up workflow by telling the agent to reuse the returned id as member_id/user_id, which hints at when this tool is a prerequisite for role updates or removals. However, it never states when to call this versus kaiten_get_card or kaiten_list_users, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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