kaiten_list_checklists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the response contains references rather than full item payloads — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the routing pointer. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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 unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only real shortfall is the absence of any pagination or card_id guidance for a tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 of explaining card_id, limit and offset, and it explains none of them. 'On a card' loosely implies the card_id input, but the pagination parameters and their defaults/bounds are left entirely undocumented.

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 checklist references on a card') with the scope of the listing made explicit. The phrase 'references' plus the pointer to kaiten_get_checklist cleanly separates it from the sibling that returns full checklist contents.

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 names the alternative (kaiten_get_checklist) and the condition that selects it (when you need item details). It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or what the references alone are good for, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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