kaiten_list_card_subscribers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a potential 405 error and that the feature may be unavailable, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention anything about response format, heavy fields, or other potential failure modes.

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 concise sentence plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary caveat without any wasteful elaboration.

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 list tool with complete parameter documentation, the description covers the purpose and a key failure mode. However, it lacks details about the response structure (e.g., user objects, avatars) or pagination, which the compact parameter implies could vary. Without an output schema, these gaps leave some uncertainty for the agent.

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%: both card_id and compact are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('subscribers of a Kaiten card'), with a synonym ('watchers') for disambiguation. It is distinct from sibling add/remove subscriber tools and other list tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implicitly indicates this is the read-only listing counterpart to the add/remove subscriber tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or exclude scenarios. No guidance on pagination or prerequisites is provided.

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