kaiten_get_card_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether the call mutates anything, how pagination behaves, what the default limit is, or what permissions are required. This adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It states the action immediately and remains appropriately sized for a straightforward card-activity retrieval tool.

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?

The required parameter and optional pagination fields are enough to make a call, but there is no output schema and no description of what the activity feed contains, how results are ordered, or any constraints. The description is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to interpret the response.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema ('Max results', 'Pagination offset', 'Card ID'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics such as ranges, defaults, or ordering behavior, but the schema already provides adequate baseline coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get activity feed' scoped to 'a Kaiten card.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like kaiten_get_company_activity and kaiten_get_space_activity, which target different scopes, and from kaiten_get_card_location_history, which is a different kind of feed.

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?

There is an implied usage cue: use this tool when you need activity for a specific card. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it differs from other activity-scoped tools, leaving selection partially to inference.

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