Get Kanban Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits), but the given annotations are sufficient for a safe read operation.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not hint at what 'all details' includes (e.g., fields like title, due date, assignee). Parameter documentation is also incomplete. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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 only 50%. Only bucket_id has a generic description ('Basecamp resource identifier'); card_id lacks any description. The tool description does not clarify the meaning or format of these parameters 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 'Get all details of a specific kanban card' clearly states the verb (get), resource (kanban card), and scope (specific, all details). This distinguishes it from siblings like list (multiple cards) and update/create (mutations).

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 is implied: use when you need full details of a single card. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with siblings like basecamp_get_todoset or basecamp_list_kanban_cards are provided.

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