kaiten_list_card_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a listing/read operation only implicitly and says nothing about return shape, pagination, ordering, permissions, or side effects, which is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence communicates the action and scope with no filler or redundancy. The core information is front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 list tool, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the resource and the required card_id. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves return-value details and behavioral specifics unstated, so it is not fully complete.

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% because card_id is already documented as 'Card ID.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond identifying the card whose files should be listed, so it stays at the schema-covered baseline.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('file attachments'), and a scope ('on a Kaiten card'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. This wording distinguishes it from related siblings such as kaiten_list_documents and kaiten_list_external_links.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites beyond the obvious card_id. The one-sentence description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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