Get Card Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the expected response shape by listing tasks, comments, labels, and attachments, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any error/edge-case behavior, or describe whether sub-resources are fully embedded nested objects.

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 redundant words. It efficiently communicates the resource, the action, and the key included details.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to spell out return values, and the description successfully communicates the tool's purpose. The main gap is the lack of explicit distinction from the sibling get_card, though the word 'details' and the enumerated components make that distinction reasonably inferable.

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 has one required parameter, cardId, with no description in the schema. The tool description only refers to 'a card' without explicitly stating that cardId is the card's identifier or how to obtain a valid value. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 verb and resource ('Get a card') and enumerates the scope ('all its details: tasks, comments, labels, and attachments'). This clearly indicates the tool returns a fully populated card object. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling get_card, so differentiation from that near-identical tool is only implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_card or get_all_cards. It simply describes what the tool does without indicating a preferred use case, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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