Create Checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so an agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that the checklist starts empty, but it does not discuss duplicate-creation behavior or side effects beyond creating the checklist. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the workflow pointers add value without repeating schema or annotation information.

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?

For a low-complexity creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and leaves little ambiguity. It does not describe the return value, but that omission is minor and no output schema exists to require elaboration.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already explains cardId, name, and verbosity.

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 clearly states what the tool does: creates an empty checklist on a card. It distinguishes itself from related checklist tools by emphasizing 'empty' and by naming companion tools for adding items and reading back, so an agent can tell this from kaiten_get_checklist, kaiten_delete_checklist, and kaiten_add_checklist_item.

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 description explicitly points to kaiten_add_checklist_item for adding rows and kaiten_get_checklist for reading back, giving a clear workflow around this tool. It does not state when not to use it or compare it with rename/delete checklist siblings, but the context is clear enough for most selection scenarios.

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