List Columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that col_type encodes card state (queued/in_progress/done) and that passing the columnId is the state-change mechanism. It does not mention whether archived columns are included, but the annotation coverage makes this acceptable.

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 description is dense and free of filler, packing the resource, col_type mapping, and downstream usage into a compact form. The all-caps 'THIS' and dash-heavy flow are slightly noisy, but every clause earns its place, so a high score is warranted.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool, the definition is functionally complete: it names the required boardId source, the downstream columnId usage, and the semantic meaning of col_type. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response shape would help, but the core workflow is well covered.

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 both boardId and verbosity are already documented. The description supplements by tracing boardId to kaiten_list_boards and columnId to card operations, but it does not clarify the verbosity enum values (raw|min|normal|max) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as board columns/statuses and adds key semantic detail with col_type. However, it opens with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it does not contrast with sibling list tools like kaiten_list_subcolumns or kaiten_list_lanes; the resource name alone carries most of the differentiation.

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 usage context: it explains that this tool provides the columnId needed to change card state via kaiten_update_card and kaiten_create_card, and that boardId comes from kaiten_list_boards. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it with alternative list tools, 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.