List Board Cards

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: newest-first ordering and no search filters. However, it does not describe return shape or pagination, and 'no filters' is slightly imprecise because the condition parameter can select archived rather than live cards.

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 sentences, no filler, with the key behavior and ordering claim front-loaded and the sibling routing in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with comprehensive schema coverage and safety annotations, the description plus schema leaves nothing essential missing. The only nuance (condition/archived) is fully documented in the schema, and the output is inferable as a list of cards.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail; its 'no filters' shorthand is understandable but should ideally acknowledge the condition parameter for archived cards.

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 names a specific verb ('list'), a resource ('cards on a board'), and two scoping traits ('recent', 'newest first'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with kaiten_search_cards, so the agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear when-to-use ('recent cards on a board') and an explicit when-not-to-use with an alternative ('For filtered search use kaiten_search_cards'). No ambiguity remains about which sibling handles filtering.

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