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 warns about multi-megabyte HTML but does not state that the operation is read-only, require any permissions, or disclose side effects. Missing critical behavioral context for a tool with no 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 efficiently structured: front-loaded purpose, then return type, then usage guidance, then param details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The bullet list is clear.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the main return types (text or HTML) and warnings about large payloads. It lacks error handling or card-not-found scenarios, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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%, but the description fully compensates by listing all 5 parameters with explanations of their purpose, defaults, and when to use include_html. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 'Get a Metaflow card's content' and explains the default return type (text). It distinguishes from the sibling tool list_cards by mentioning discovery first. The verb+resource is specific.

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 explicit context: 'Use list_cards first to discover available cards' and advises when to use include_html (only when saving to a file). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios for other siblings like compare_cards, but the guidance is clear for typical usage.

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