planka_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. It only states 'Get detailed information' without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'detailed'. This is minimal transparency for a retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is essential.

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 output schema, the description does not explain the return format or content. While the schema provides parameter details, for a retrieval tool, some indication of what 'detailed information' includes would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema already describes parameters (card_id, response_format, response_context) with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With schema description coverage effectively not 0% (despite context signal), 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 'Get detailed information about a specific card' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (detailed information about a specific card). It distinguishes from sibling tools like planka_list_cards (which lists cards) and planka_find_and_get_card (which finds and then gets).

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 usage when specific card details are needed, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. With siblings like planka_find_and_get_card and planka_list_cards, guidance on when to choose this tool over others is lacking.

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