Поиск/выборка карточек

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the result is an array of cards, and the parameter semantics (no required fields) imply a read operation. But it omits important behavior: default scope (does it search across all spaces?), pagination interplay between limit/offset, result ordering, and any rate limits.

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?

Four short sentences with purpose front-loaded and zero padding; extra_params guidance sits where it is needed. Slight redundancy between 'все фильтры опциональны' and a schema that already has zero required parameters, but overall tight.

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 17-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose and the return shape but leaves out scoping defaults and pagination behavior that materially affect correct invocation. Adequate, but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 all 17 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only two pieces of meaning: that filters combine freely, and that extra_params is an escape hatch for unexposed Kaiten API query params. It does not clarify precedence (e.g., archived vs condition=2) or interactions between overlapping filters.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb+resource: flexible card selection by filters, and notes it returns an array of cards. It distinguishes itself from kaiten_get_card (single card) only implicitly; it does not name any sibling such as kaiten_today_tasks or kaiten_overdue_cards, which are also card lists.

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?

It states that all filters are optional and combinable and directs agents to extra_params for API params not exposed as fields — useful guidance. However it never says when to use this general search instead of the specialized list tools (today_tasks, overdue_cards) or when a scope parameter (board_id/space_id) is required to make results meaningful.

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