Просроченные 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 two genuinely useful behavioral facts: only active cards are returned, and the date comparison is strict (today's due cards are excluded). However it says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or permissions, which matters since there is no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, leading with the verb and resource before the filter condition. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves no room for routing or behavioral context.

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 6-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics adequately. The remaining gaps are the relationship to sibling tools like kaiten_today_tasks and any note on result ordering or truncation at the limit.

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%, so every parameter (role enum, limit, user_id default, board/space scoping, as_of_date format) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond confirming user scoping, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Возвращает активные карточки пользователя") and pins the filter precisely with "срок которых уже прошёл (строго раньше сегодня)". An agent can tell what it returns, though the description never names the closest sibling (kaiten_today_tasks) to contrast the boundary case.

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 strict-before-today condition implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to kaiten_today_tasks / kaiten_search_cards as alternatives. The agent must infer routing from the tool name and the filter wording alone.

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