kaiten_list_all_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: automatic pagination, combined results, the 50-page/5000-card safety limit, and which timing/audit fields are present in responses. It does not disclose rate limits, errors, or ordering, but for a read-style list tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 with the core behavior front-loaded before use-case guidance, and every sentence serves a purpose. The audit-field sentence is long, but it earns its place by supporting the audit use case without extra fluff.

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 31-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers pagination, safety limits, and two concrete use cases — but it omits the distinction from kaiten_list_cards, rate limits, error/edge-case behavior, and how filters compose. Solid but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already contains the exact metrics and audit field strings for the 'fields' parameter. The description adds marginal interpretive value — linking the timing fields to the location-history alternative and tying the 5000-card cap to pagination — but most of its field lists are redundant with the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Fetch ALL cards matching filters' — and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like kaiten_list_cards by emphasizing 'ALL', automatic pagination, and combined results across pages. An agent can tell this is the bulk-fetch variant without opening the schema.

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 when-not guidance: for basic Kanban metrics the returned timing fields mean 'no need to call kaiten_get_card_location_history for each card', naming the alternative directly. However, it never addresses the most likely confusion — when to use this over the near-identical kaiten_list_cards — so the routing is incomplete.

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