get_card_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discharges it reasonably: 'Récupère' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects, and the parenthetical enumerates the categories of data the caller can expect back. It stops short of describing error behavior for an invalid or nonexistent cardId or the response format, but for a simple get-by-ID fetch the core behavioral disclosure is present.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical list of return categories — zero filler, every phrase carries information. The verb and object come first, followed by the detail enumeration, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 tool this simple — one required parameter with 100% schema coverage and read-only behavior — the description covers the essential invocation facts: what it fetches and the categories of data returned. The remaining gaps (explicit usage routing, error semantics, and output format given there is no output schema) are minor for a get-by-ID tool but keep it from a 5.

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 single parameter cardId is already fully documented by the schema (type string, 24 characters), so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter context such as where to obtain the cardId (e.g., from list_trello_cards) or an example value, leaving the schema as the only source of parameter meaning.

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 and resource — 'Récupère tous les détails d'une carte' (retrieves all details of a card) — and enumerates the content categories (members, labels, checklists, dates, attachments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trello_cards or search_trello_cards, which return card lists rather than comprehensive single-card detail.

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 use case is implied: an agent needing full detail on a single card should call this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives — for instance, nothing tells the agent to prefer list_attachments or get_checklist_progress for narrower queries.

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