Search Cards

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: query matches only card titles, condition accepts only 1 or 2 (no 'all' filter), and live+archived requires two separate calls. It also discloses the return shape as an array of simplified cards per verbosity, which is useful since no output schema exists.

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 somewhat long at seven sentences, but each sentence carries actionable information: scoping, query limitations, condition gotchas, the two-call workflow, and the get_card alternative. It is reasonably front-loaded with the core purpose, though the condition explanation could arguably have been tightened.

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?

Given 31 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important decision points: how to scope, what query does, how condition behaves, how to combine live and archived results, and what to use for full card detail. It leaves pagination details and verbosity specifics to the schema, which is acceptable, but the return format is only lightly described.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents every parameter including query's title-only match and condition's 1/2 semantics. The description mostly restates or summarizes this structured information rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Search cards' — and immediately differentiates it from the more targeted sibling kaiten_get_card by noting that full detail belongs there. It also clarifies the tool's core purpose as filtered search with pagination, so an agent can distinguish it from the board/space listing tools.

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?

It gives explicit scoping guidance (pass boardId or spaceId), explains the query parameter's limited title-only behavior, and provides a concrete strategy for retrieving live and archived cards across two calls. It also names kaiten_get_card as the alternative when full card detail is needed, which is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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