kaiten_get_card_location_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the operation is a read ('Get') and specifies the scope of the history ('column/lane moves'), but it does not disclose response format, ordering, time range, or whether other card changes are excluded.

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. Every word adds value by naming the resource, the history concept, and the specific domain of column/lane moves.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is adequate for basic invocation, but with no output schema and no usage guidance it leaves gaps. An agent cannot tell how the response is structured or when to prefer this tool over kaiten_get_card_activity.

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% and the card_id parameter is already described as 'Card ID'. The description only adds minimal context that the card is a Kaiten card, which does not meaningfully enhance the schema's 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get location history of a Kaiten card' with an explicit parenthetical clarifying 'column/lane moves'. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like kaiten_get_card_activity and kaiten_get_card.

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 usage is implied rather than stated explicitly. The description tells what the tool does but does not say when to choose it over alternatives such as kaiten_get_card_activity, nor does it mention any exclusions or caveats.

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