taskops_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the return scope (full card with spec, thread, graph, file collisions, worktree) and the search fallback, which strongly implies a read-only operation. It does not mention error behavior or auth, but the read intent is well conveyed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a list of contents. Every phrase adds useful information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is readable and informative for a retrieval tool, but it omits the expected relationship between task and query (e.g., whether they are mutually exclusive) and does not explain behavior when neither is provided. Since there is no output schema, the lack of return-format details is also a gap, though the explicit list of included data partially compensates.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the query behavior already in the schema ('search titles and specs') and adds no extra meaning for task, actor, or repo_path beyond the schema's own detailed descriptions.

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 opens with 'One card in full' — a specific verb+resource — and enumerates the full contents (spec, thread, graph, file collisions, worktree). It also distinguishes a second mode (query search) and implicitly separates this tool from siblings like taskops_board or taskops_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 description implies usage: use it to view one card in full, or use query to search titles/specs. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it explain consequences of omitting both task and query.

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