List Files

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: mime_type is inferred client-side from filename extension because Kaiten does not persist the multipart Content-Type header, and unknown extensions return null. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious runtime detail an agent needs.

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 concise sentences, purpose first, then parameter provenance, then a behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content; 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 2-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the required parameter source, the downstream use of fileId, and a key output nuance. It does not enumerate the return fields or verbosity effects, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations.

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 schema already documents cardId and verbosity. The description adds cross-tool guidance by specifying cardId comes from kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_card and that fileId is intended for kaiten_delete_file, which enriches the otherwise generic parameter documentation.

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 'List card attachments', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further differentiates related operations by naming fileId for kaiten_delete_file and cardId from kaiten_search_cards/kaiten_get_card, so the agent can disambiguate it from file upload/delete siblings.

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 context by telling the agent where cardId comes from and how the resulting fileId will be used. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use this tool versus upload/delete alternatives, but the list-vs-mutate distinction is clear from context.

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