trello_get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' encompass (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'details' include (e.g., card fields, nested data), authentication needs, or error cases. For a read operation in a context with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'card_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the card'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as where to find the ID or format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific card'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trello_get_board_cards' or 'trello_get_list_cards' by specifying retrieval of a single card's details rather than lists of cards. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'details' include, which slightly limits specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a card ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'trello_get_board_cards' for multiple cards. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or decision criteria provided.

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