get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the return payload (full details), but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid ID). The lack of side-effect transparency is mitigated by the 'get' verb, but not fully addressed.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word is meaningful, listing specific content. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the returned data. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. The description is nearly complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the single 'id' parameter. Although the tool name and schema imply 'id' is the card identifier, the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format, source, required, or constraints). With one required param and no description, the agent must infer usage, which is a gap.

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 the tool returns a single card with full details, listing specific contents (description, tags, journals, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards (for multiple cards) and search_cards (for filtering). The verb 'Return' and resource 'card' are specific, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when needing full details of one card, but does not explicitly address when to use alternatives (e.g., list_cards for a list, search_cards for filtering, get_note for notes). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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