kaiten_list_project_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List cards' and does not mention read-only semantics, pagination, sorting, permissions, or response format. It is not misleading, but it is too sparse to give an agent meaningful expectations beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the core action and target resource appear immediately. It is appropriately minimal for a simple list operation.

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 tool with a simple two-parameter schema, the one-line description plus schema is minimally sufficient to make a call. However, the lack of an output schema and the presence of several similar card-list siblings mean the description does not fully clarify what to expect from the response or how this tool fits among its alternatives.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters, including the UUID type for project_id and the meaning of compact, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('cards in a Kaiten project'), so an agent can identify what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like kaiten_list_cards or kaiten_list_all_cards, leaving some ambiguity about scope differences.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the other card-listing tools in the sibling list, such as kaiten_list_cards, kaiten_list_all_cards, or kaiten_get_card. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints.

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