Чек-листы карточки

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that items are returned nested with the checklists, which is useful behavioral context. However it says nothing about permissions, behavior when a card has no checklists, or whether results are paginated.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler and the key fact (items included) front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level. It leaves the agent without knowledge of error cases, empty-result behavior, or ordering, which are the remaining gaps.

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% with a single required card_id already documented, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for a single fully-described parameter.

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 ('Возвращает чек-листы карточки') and clarifies the payload includes checklist items, which distinguishes it from item-level tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like kaiten_add_checklist or kaiten_list_card_external_links, 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus kaiten_add_checklist, kaiten_add_checklist_item, or kaiten_update_checklist_item, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only intent is only implied by the verb 'Возвращает'.

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