Get Card

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful operational context: verbosity default of min returning 9 core fields, max for full detail, includeChildren behavior, and a simplified return object per verbosity. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 the core action front-loaded. It is efficient and readable, though it slightly restates includeChildren and cardId provenance that are already in the schema descriptions. Overall, every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only getter with fully described parameters, safety annotations, and no output schema, this description provides everything needed for correct invocation: how to find the ID, how to control detail, how to fetch children, and what return shape to expect. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by explaining the effect of verbosity ('max for full detail') and the default min behavior, which the schema only tersely labels as 'Detail: raw|min(default)|normal|max'. The cardId and includeChildren guidance mostly mirrors the schema but reinforces usage.

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 'Get a single card by ID', naming a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search/list tools by emphasizing single-card lookup via ID, and the mention of verbosity and includeChildren further characterizes its unique behavior.

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 description gives a clear workflow: 'Resolve cardId via kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_board_cards' tells the agent how to obtain a valid ID and implies this tool is for the follow-up single-card fetch. It could be stronger with an explicit 'use this when you already have a card ID' statement, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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