get_checklist_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('Get the card a checklist is on') and does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any permissions required, response format, or error behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already implied by the tool name.

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 short (two sentences), but the second sentence 'Use this tool to find out which card a checklist belongs to' is redundant with the first sentence. It does not add new information, so it does not earn 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?

The tool is simple and the schema is complete, but the description lacks any differentiation from the sibling tool get_checklist_board and does not mention what the response contains. It is minimally viable for an agent to understand the tool's core function, but it could be more complete by clarifying the relationship to get_checklist_board.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (fields, checklistId, detailLevel), covering 100% of the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the card a checklist is on', which clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_checklist_board by explicitly using 'card' rather than 'board'.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this tool to find out which card a checklist belongs to.' This gives context for when to use it, but it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., use get_checklist_board to get the board).

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