List Card Blockers

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: released rows persist in history, the DELETE endpoint acts as a soft release because no hard-delete API exists, and blockers can carry either a free-text reason, a card pointer, or both. This materially helps an agent predict side effects and interpret results.

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?

All six sentences earn their place: purpose is front-loaded, then filtering guidance, data model, release routing, parameter provenance, and return type. There is no filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 return-format burden and does so well: it states the array return, the field shapes (reason, blocker_card_id/blocker_card_title, released), and the client-side filtering pattern. The remaining gaps are minor — no pagination or result-limit info, and the verbosity field sets are only approximated.

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, but the description adds meaning: cardId is sourced from kaiten_search_cards, and verbosity controls how simplified the returned objects are. This is genuine added value over the bare enum list, though the exact field set per verbosity level stays vague.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'List all blockers on a card' — and sharpens scope with 'INCLUDING released ones', which separates it from a plain blockers listing. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like kaiten_add_card_blocker and kaiten_release_card_blocker by describing its read-oriented role.

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 clear operational context: filter by the `released` field client-side to find active blockers, source cardId from kaiten_search_cards, and route release actions to kaiten_release_card_blocker with the rationale (soft release; no hard-delete API). It names one alternative explicitly, but never states a broad when-not-to-use condition beyond the release case.

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