framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is retrieved (comments, checklists, attachments, labels) beyond generic 'details', though it could add information about external resource access implied by openWorldHint or cache behavior.

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 efficient sentence where every word earns its place. It front-loads the action ('Get full details'), identifies the target ('of a card'), and clarifies scope ('including...') without redundant verbosity.

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?

Given this is a simple read operation with one parameter and annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint), the description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the specific data fields returned. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's value proposition.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the 'id' parameter is fully documented as accepting 'Card ID or title (partial match supported)'), the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the complete schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'card' and explicitly scopes the operation as 'full details'. By listing specific included resources (comments, checklists, attachments, labels), it clearly distinguishes this from sibling list operations like list_cards or search_cards, which likely return summary data.

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 term 'full details' implies usage when comprehensive card data is needed versus simple listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_cards, search_cards, or get_my_cards, and no named alternatives or exclusions.

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