List Card Timelogs

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: return type (array), unit semantics (time_spent in minutes), and critically, the gotcha that the tool returns [] for nonexistent cards identically to cards with no timelogs — a false-negative trap an agent must know about. The suggestion to verify via kaiten_search_cards provides a concrete disambiguation strategy.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, return type + unit, cross-tool field usage, and the empty-array caveat. The description is front-loaded with the purpose, contains zero repetition of schema content, and flags the most important warning with 'NOTE' for prominence.

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 list tool with one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed: return type, units, edge-case behavior, and parameter sourcing. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key output fields (time_spent, logId) and their roles, so no critical calling information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where the required cardId comes from (kaiten_search_cards) and that the returned logId is the key consumed by the update/delete timelog tools, which the schema's terse 'Card ID' does not convey. The verbosity parameter is fully documented by the schema's enum and default, so no addition is needed there.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('List a card's timelogs') that clearly scopes the tool to a single card, distinguishing it from kaiten_get_user_timelogs and kaiten_get_timesheet among siblings. Stating 'Returns array' removes ambiguity about the call's output shape. The name and description together leave no doubt about what this tool does.

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 gives strong operational context: it sources the required cardId from kaiten_search_cards and explains that the returned logId is consumed by kaiten_update_timelog / kaiten_delete_timelog, effectively mapping the surrounding workflow. It names related tools and gives a verification strategy, but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use contrast with kaiten_get_user_timelogs or kaiten_get_timesheet, so it misses the 5-level bar.

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