kaiten_get_card_blocker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens when the blocker or card does not exist, whether any authentication/access requirements apply, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal disclosure.

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 7-word sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. It is efficient and has no wasted words, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context and does not hint at the return value or error behavior, leaving the description adequate but minimal.

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 both card_id and blocker_id already described in the input schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither enriches nor harms parameter understanding.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('blocker on a card'), and the qualifier 'specific' which contrasts with the CRUD sibling kaiten_list_card_blockers. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_list_card_blockers, kaiten_create_card_blocker, or kaiten_update_card_blocker. No prerequisites (e.g., the card must exist, blocker_id must be obtained from a list call) or exclusions are stated; usage is only weakly implied by the tool name.

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