Доски пространства

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the KAITEN_DEFAULT_SPACE_ID fallback behavior, which isn't purely derivable. But it doesn't state read-only nature explicitly, pagination, or return shape — gaps for a no-annotation tool, though 'returns' weakly signals a read.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the fallback detail follows. Efficient with no waste, though slightly redundant with the schema's parameter description.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation detail (default space). It doesn't describe the return list shape, which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed, so it's adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% and the single space_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including the default-from-config note. The description largely repeats what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns boards (boards) inside a space. An agent can distinguish it from kaiten_get_board and kaiten_list_spaces. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, 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?

The default-fallback sentence implies when the parameter can be omitted, but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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