kaiten_list_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the condition and state numeric mappings that already appear in the parameter schemas. It does not mention read-only behavior, response shape, pagination, or any operational caveats, so it adds little transparency beyond the structured schema.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the primary action before the enum reminder. It is appropriately short, though the condition/state sentence is partly redundant with the schema, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 27-parameter read/list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is a bare minimum: it gives the primary purpose and two enum references, but omits high-level context such as what the result contains, how filters combine, or how this differs from kaiten_list_all_cards. The complete parameter descriptions in the schema prevent this from being a serious failure.

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% and every parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The prose description adds only the condition/state enums already present in the schema and no new parameter semantics, so it neither hurts nor improves on 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 states a specific action ('Search and list Kaiten cards') and highlights filtering as its core capability, which is sufficient to identify what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like kaiten_list_all_cards or kaiten_get_card, 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?

'With filtering' implies the tool is appropriate when the agent needs to search or filter cards rather than fetch a single card or list all cards. However, no alternative tools are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are provided, leaving the selection guidance implicit.

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