Get Card Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but this is not stated explicitly. It also does not disclose any authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behaviors. For a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 filler. Every word contributes to specifying the action and scope.

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 output schema is present (though not shown here), so return format is covered. However, the description omits any error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., existence of board and card), or behavior when multiple cards share the same name. For a straightforward retrieval, this is minimally adequate.

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 provides only parameter names with zero description coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on what 'board_name' and 'card_name' mean, their format, or how to find them. Since the schema gives no guidance and the description adds none, the agent must rely on naming conventions alone, which is insufficient.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific card') and explicitly lists included fields (description, due date, comments). It implies a single card vs. the sibling 'get_cards' which likely lists cards, though it does not name the sibling directly.

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 for retrieving detailed information about one card, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_cards or search_cards. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the selection to inference.

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