List archived cards and lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: ordering (most recently touched first), the `listClosed` edge case, null for unknown boardId, and an offline fallback to the last on-disk export when the desktop app is closed. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: return shape, the listClosed caveat, the restore path, and the error/offline behaviors. The result structure is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does: a `lists` group with live-card counts and a `cards` group with list names, plus the null and offline-fallback cases. Nothing essential for calling or interpreting the tool is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (boardId) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning. It reveals the unknown-id behavior (returns null) but never states that boardId is required or what format an id takes, leaving part of the single parameter's semantics implicit.

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 (return what a board has archived) and enumerates the two result groups, `lists` and `cards`. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kanbini_get_board or kanbini_search_cards, which cover live content.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the returned ids: use them with kanbini_archive_card / kanbini_archive_list with archived: false to restore. It also warns that restoring a card in an archived list is insufficient without also restoring the list. It does not contrast with live-content siblings, but the operational guidance is concrete.

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