get_metabase_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Get a list') and return type, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds return value details, which is useful given the output schema. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return type, but lacks context on usage, behavior, or sibling differentiation. With no annotations and an output schema, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as per rules for 0 parameters, since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all saved questions (cards)'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_card_query_results' by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than query execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'get_metabase_collection' or 'get_metabase_dashboards' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_metabase_collection' and 'get_metabase_dashboards', the description lacks context on whether this is for general listing, filtering, or specific use cases. It mentions returning metadata but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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