Get card metrics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations, such as that the board parameter is required for mirror cards, and that response_format controls output format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise: a header line, a bulleted list of three parameters with clear explanations, and a relevant example. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded. No unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs well and provides an example. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned metrics (e.g., time durations per column). Since annotations are rich, this is a minor gap.

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 low (only response_format has schema description). The tool description compensates by explaining id (card ObjectId), board (board publicId, required for mirror cards), and response_format (enum with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Fetch time-in-column and cycle/lead-time metrics for a card.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kanbanzone_get_card (card details) and kanbanzone_get_card_history (history).

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 through an example ('How long has card...been in each column?'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kanbanzone_get_card or kanbanzone_get_card_history. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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