get_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' and 'full details' imply a read-only operation, and the mention of comments adds specificity. However, it does not state permissions, response format, or any side effects, so it is minimally adequate.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, conveying the essential purpose effectively.

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 (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The key detail 'including comments' provides useful differentiation, making the description sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description fails to mention the card_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving any additional semantics (e.g., format, expected value) unaddressed.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('card'), and scope ('full details including comments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cards (plural, likely listing) and get_attachments (specific to attachments), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single card's complete information, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the distinction from get_cards is implicit.

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