get_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get content'), but doesn't describe any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, performance characteristics, error handling, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information ('Get content of multiple cards') with a clarifying parenthetical ('bulk'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'content' includes, the format of returned data, pagination behavior, or error conditions. While the schema covers the single input parameter well, the overall context for using this tool effectively is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'cardIds' well-documented in the schema as 'List of Card IDs to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying bulk operation through 'multiple cards', which aligns with the array parameter type. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('content of multiple cards') with the qualifier 'bulk', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_card' by specifying multiple cards, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/search tools like 'list_cards_page' or 'search_cards' beyond the bulk retrieval aspect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose this bulk retrieval over individual 'get_card' calls, or when to prefer 'list_cards_page' or 'search_cards' for different retrieval needs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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