Get Card Location History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them. Beyond that, it adds genuinely valuable behavioral context: the response is sorted newest-first by `changed`, the history `id` is a STRING rather than an integer (a critical type gotcha), and the `condition` field's enum mapping (1=Active, 2=Archived, 3=Deleted) is disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place: use cases, sort order, the id-type gotcha, the condition mapping, and input provenance. It is dense but efficiently organized. Slight deduction because the condition fragment ('condition: 1=Active...') is telegraphic and leaves ambiguous whether condition is a request parameter or a response field.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does well: movement events with timestamp, author, sort order, the string-id quirk, and the condition enum. Remaining gaps are minor for a simple read-only endpoint — the meaning of `changed` is assumed, the effect of each verbosity level (raw/min/normal/max) on the response is unspecified, and pagination/limits are not mentioned.

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 baseline is 3 — both cardId and verbosity are already documented in the schema with types, enums, defaults, and provenance. The description only restates the cardId provenance already present in the schema and adds an output-field mapping (condition), which is not a parameter. It adds no meaning about the verbosity parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource — 'Get the card movement history' — and specifies exactly what that history contains (moves between boards, columns, lanes, or sprints, with timestamp and author). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like kaiten_get_card, kaiten_get_card_comments, and kaiten_get_card_timelogs, none of which cover location movements.

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?

Concrete use cases are given — audit ('who moved this card and when') and cycle-time analytics ('how long did this card sit in each column') — which tells an agent when this tool is the right choice. It also routes input provenance ('cardId from kaiten_get_card or kaiten_search_cards') and notes how this endpoint differs from 'most Kaiten endpoints.' However, it never explicitly names an alternative to use instead or states a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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