get_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it is vague. It claims members and attachments are included, while the includeDetails parameter indicates these are optional additions, creating ambiguity. No mention of return structure, default behavior, or side effects.

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 is front-loaded and concise, with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though brevity sacrifices some needed 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?

For a read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of includeDetails, differentiate from sibling tools, or describe the response shape. The ambiguity about included fields is a notable 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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameters in detail. However, it does not clarify how includeDetails changes the output, and the mention of members/attachments could mislead about default behavior. Adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('specific Trello card') while listing content categories. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like trello_get_card_attachments or trello_get_card_checklists, so it misses the top score.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as trello_get_board_cards, trello_get_card_actions, or trello_get_card_attachments. No prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios are mentioned.

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