Get Card Details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: attachments appear only as raw <action-text-attachment> markup, plain text flattens them to uninspectable filenames, and include_attachments=true is required to get structured metadata. It even discloses the default response behavior, leaving no ambiguity about side effects.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and usable context, then delivers a compact but necessary attachment warning. Every sentence carries information; the length is justified by a non-obvious worklow for attachment retrieval.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value exposition and does so thoroughly: it lists content categories, explains attachment shapes and default behavior, and gives a clear follow-up path. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 does add a small usage heuristic for include_attachments (pursue attachment data when visual content matters). The cardinal flaw is the card_id property: it says the parameter is a 'card number' and that 'This is different from card_id' even though the property is named card_id, creating confusion instead of clarity.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific card'), and enumerates the returned content: full HTML description, assignees, tags, due dates, steps, and metadata. The description's attachment caveat is clearly tied to a detail-read operation, and the tool name further distinguishes it from the list-style fizzy_get_cards sibling.

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 explicit context ('Use this to see complete card content before making updates') and names the follow-up alternative (fizzy_get_attachment) with a triggering condition ('whenever a card mentions a screenshot or the answer depends on what a picture shows'). It does not explicitly exclude list-style siblings such as fizzy_get_cards, so it stops short of full marks.

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