get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the included content but fails to state that the operation is read-only, lacks rate limits or authentication requirements, and does not describe side effects or error conditions. This omission leaves agents uncertain about safety and 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by structuring the list of included elements in a more scannable way.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the return value structure and parameter effects. It does not clarify that members and attachments may only be included if includeDetails is true, nor does it mention the optional apiKey/token parameters. This incompleteness may lead to incorrect agent assumptions.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the return content rather than parameter semantics. For example, the effect of includeDetails is described in the schema but not reinforced in the description.

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 detailed information' and the resource 'a specific Trello card', listing specific components like content, status, members, and attachments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on sub-resources (e.g., trello_get_card_actions, trello_get_card_attachments) or listing cards (trello_get_board_cards).

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 the tool is for retrieving comprehensive card details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trello_get_card_actions or trello_get_card_checklists. Given the large sibling list, clearer usage context would improve agent decision-making.

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