kaiten_get_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral nuance – that some referenced sections appear only 'when available' – but says nothing about permissions, error cases when the card is missing, or rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower and this modest addition is adequate.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what is returned, the second handles the routing boundary. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, the return shape need not be explained in prose, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description still tells the agent enough to call this correctly for a simple one-parameter read, with the only gap being that card_id's expected format and provenance are left implicit.

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?

There is one parameter (card_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning; it only implies an identifier through 'Get a card' and never states that card_id is a positive integer card identifier. It does not fully compensate for the schema gap, but the concept is unambiguous enough in context.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Get a card') and enumerates the payload it returns: description, members, tags, properties, external links, parent/child references, checklist references. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_list_card_children without opening the schema.

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 second sentence redirects to 'dedicated tools' for comments and checklist items, which is genuine routing guidance and names a boundary against kaiten_list_comments and kaiten_list_checklists. However, it gives no guidance on how to obtain a card_id (e.g., via kaiten_search_cards) or when a narrower list tool would be preferable to this full fetch.

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