kaiten_list_custom_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the note that returned definitions carry type/multi_select/data fields worth checking — modest extra context, no pagination or auth behavior.

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 action and followed by the practical note. No filler, though the extreme brevity contributes to the parameter-content gap rather than resolving it.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description does mention which output fields matter. The remaining gap is that three parameters go entirely unexplained, which is a real but bounded omission for a simple list tool.

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% and the description never mentions limit, offset, or query. Query in particular is ambiguous (does it filter by name? by type?) and the description does nothing to compensate for the fully undocumented schema.

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+resource: 'Find existing custom property definitions.' This clearly separates it from the sibling kaiten_get_custom_property (singular fetch) and from kaiten_set_card_properties (write). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Inspect type, multi_select and data before assigning values' implies the workflow context (use this ahead of assignment), but never names the assignment tool or states when-not to use this. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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