planka_get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description discloses what content is returned. It does not cover auth requirements, cost, or rate limits, but for a simple fetch tool this is a reasonable baseline.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the included content without filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient — an agent needs only cardId to invoke it correctly. It could name sibling tools for routing, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 100% — cardId is already described as 'The card ID'. The description adds no further meaning about parameter format, how to obtain the ID, or expected values, which matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (card), and the content scope (tasks, comments, labels, attachments). The listed contents implicitly distinguish it from planka_get_comments (scoped to comments only), though this differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied through the listed content — an agent can infer that retrieves the full card payload versus sibling tools like planka_get_comments or planka_get_structure. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor mention of alternatives.

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