kaiten_get_card

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information by naming exactly which related data is bundled in and which is deliberately excluded, which is behavior beyond the annotations and beyond the input 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the returned payload front-loaded and the exclusion sentence second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation need not be repeated, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the inclusion/exclusion boundary, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior for an invalid card_id.

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 a single card_id integer parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but its meaning is self-evident from name and type, so no compensating prose is strictly required. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source guidance, so baseline 3 fits.

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+resource ('Get a card') and enumerates the payload it returns (full description, members, tags, properties, checklist references), which distinguishes it from list/search siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_board, so this is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion: comments and checklist items are not returned here and must be fetched with their dedicated tools (kaiten_list_comments, kaiten_get_checklist). It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over kaiten_search_cards, so the routing advice is one-sided.

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