Get card

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description's contribution is the REST path, which reveals that the read is nested under a board and stack and that all three identifiers must resolve to an existing hierarchy. It says nothing about what happens when a card is missing or about access requirements.

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?

Two short lines with the action front-loaded and the endpoint as supporting detail; nothing is redundant. The trade-off is that the terseness leaves real questions unanswered rather than being wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a returned card contains (title, description, due date, assignees, labels) or how errors surface. For a single-resource read tool with three undescribed parameters, that omission leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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%, so the schema supplies only names and integer types. The endpoint path adds genuine meaning by establishing that board_id, stack_id, and card_id are ordered path segments forming a parent-child chain, not independent filters. However, it does not explain where an agent obtains these ids or whether any of them are optional in practice.

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?

"Read one card" states a specific verb and resource, and the appended endpoint path confirms it is a single-record fetch scoped to a board/stack/card hierarchy. It is clearly distinct from list_stacks, create_card, update_card, and delete_card by verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as nextcloud_get_board or nextcloud_list_stacks for inspecting board contents, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the endpoint path.

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