Комментарии карточки

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read operation but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, permissions, or whether deleted comments are included — all material for a list-style endpoint.

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 no filler, so nothing is wasted — but it is under-specified rather than concise, and it omits the front-loaded details (read-only nature, pagination) an agent would want before calling.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description need not explain return values. Still, for a listing endpoint with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any note on pagination or result shape leaves a real gap.

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 the single parameter (card_id, "ID карточки") is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning such as where to obtain the card ID or whether it accepts numeric IDs only, 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 states a verb and resource ("Возвращает комментарии карточки"), which is enough to understand it lists a card's comments. However, it essentially restates the tool name (kaiten_list_comments) plus the title ("Комментарии карточки") without adding scope or differentiation from siblings like list_checklists or list_time_logs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing card_id before listing), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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