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 behavioral burden. It is transparent about the return payload (syntax, params, notes, doc link) and the operation is clearly a read-only documentation lookup, so risk is low. It says nothing about case sensitivity of the name, error behavior for unknown cards, or any auth/rate constraints.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the capability statement front-loaded and the examples placed second to clarify accepted inputs. Nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the one required parameter is illustrated with examples. For a simple single-argument lookup the description is nearly sufficient; only the exact name-format rules are missing.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by supplying concrete example values including a multi-word form ('set acelib'), which hints at the accepted input format. It still does not state whether the 'set ' prefix is required, whether names are case-sensitive, or how aliases resolve.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and enumerates exactly what is returned: exact syntax, parameter list, notes and documentation link, for a Serpent input card or set option. The examples ('surf', 'mat', 'set acelib') make the resource concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_cards, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples — an agent infers this is the lookup tool for a single known card or option name. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_cards, get_reference or search_docs, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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