get_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get full details.' It does not mention that results are written to an output_file, whether that file is overwritten, permissions required, or what 'full details' includes. The output_file parameter implies a side effect, but this is in the schema, not the description, so the description adds little transparency.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the key verb, resource, and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the parenthetical clarification is valuable and efficiently phrased.

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 simple retrieval tool with two self-describing required parameters, the description is largely sufficient. The lack of an output schema or more detailed behavior is offset by the clear 'full details' intent and the output_file parameter, though it does not offer guidance on how to obtain the card ID or contrast with search tools.

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 fully describes both parameters: id is 'Card ID' and output_file is 'File path where full JSON results will be written.' The tool description adds only that this is for a specific card, reinforcing the semantic but not going beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 full details') and the resource ('a specific card'), with a clarifying parenthetical that a card is a saved question. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cards (searching) and update_card (modifying) by implying a direct lookup by ID.

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 this tool is for retrieving a specific known card, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus searching for cards with search_cards or copying with copy_card. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided, leaving usage mostly inferred.

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