Get Checklist

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

Annotations already signal a safe read operation, but the description adds a critical non-obvious behavior: Kaiten resolves by checklistId alone, so a wrong cardId will still return the real checklist. It also tells the agent to verify via the returned parent card when cardId is reconstructed from memory. This is valuable beyond the 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the critical behavioral caveat, then the ID provenance. Every sentence 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 tool with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description covers purpose, output contents, ID sourcing, and the one surprising behavior. No output schema exists, but the description adequately indicates that the returned checklist includes its items and a parent card reference for verification.

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 meaningful semantics by explaining the trust relationship between cardId and checklistId, warning that cardId can be wrong and should be verified, and telling the user where checklistId originates. This goes beyond the simple 'Card ID' and 'Checklist ID' schema descriptions.

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 and resource: "Get a checklist with its items." This clearly identifies the tool as a read operation on a checklist and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kaiten_create_checklist and kaiten_delete_checklist. The resource focus is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear practical guidance: checklistId should come from kaiten_create_checklist or kaiten_get_card (verbosity=max), and cardId may need verification via the returned parent card. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the sourcing and verification advice gives enough context for correct use.

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