kaiten_get_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'Get' correctly implies a read-only operation, and the supported identifier formats are stated. But it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the card is not found, required permissions, or return-shape nuances.

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 two short clauses, front-loads the core action ('Get a Kaiten card by ID'), and immediately follows with the only important variation (numeric ID or key). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly: the resource, the action, and the acceptable identifier formats. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the simplicity of the operation makes those gaps minor and non-blocking.

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 already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the allowed types and the 'e.g. PROJ-123' example. The description adds no substantive meaning beyond restating what the schema already says, so 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 states a specific action ('Get') and a precise resource ('a Kaiten card by ID'), and clarifies that both numeric IDs and card keys are acceptable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kaiten_list_cards, which enumerate cards, and other card-scoped getters like kaiten_get_card_activity.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you already have a card ID or key. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as kaiten_list_cards or kaiten_list_all_cards for situations where the ID is unknown, so the agent must infer the appropriate routing.

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