kaiten_list_checklists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: this returns references, not complete checklist item data. It says nothing about result ordering, page size defaults, or how many cards can be paged through, which would matter for a paginated 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded before the pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence 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 and rich annotations mean the description need not explain return shape or safety, and the reference-vs-detail distinction is a valuable addition. The gap is the undocumented limit/offset parameters at 0% schema coverage for a paginated listing tool, which leaves the agent guessing about page traversal.

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 full burden and largely fails it. Only card_id is implied by 'on a card'; limit and offset, including their defaults (25) and maximum (100), are never explained, so an agent has no description-level guidance on pagination behavior.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (checklist references on a card), and the word 'references' signals a summary listing rather than full objects. It distinguishes itself from kaiten_get_checklist, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas, though it never states the pagination scope that the limit/offset params imply.

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?

It names the concrete alternative, kaiten_get_checklist, and the condition that selects it ('fetch item details'), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool (e.g. when checklist IDs are already known and details are needed immediately), but the core use/alternative split is explicit.

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