get-card

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by noting results are not cached and always current. Also implies completeness ('full untruncated description') which is useful. No contradictions with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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?

Two dense sentences: first covers purpose and inclusions, second gives post-usage guidance and caching info. No filler words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

With no output schema, description lists included data fields (description, custom fields, dependencies, attachments, time-on-board), which is helpful. Could mention other common fields like title/status, but sufficient 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, description clarifies cardId as 'per-board id, not the cardCommonId' and hints at result field cardCommonId. Also explains usage of descriptionFormat enum. Adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Description explicitly states 'Get one Favro card by its cardId' and lists included data (full untruncated description, custom fields, dependencies, attachments, time-on-board data). Differentiates from sibling tools like list-cards and search-cards by specifying singular retrieval and completeness.

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?

Provides clear next-step guidance: 'Use the cardCommonId from the result to fetch the card's comments and checklists.' Also states caching behavior ('Not cached, so results are always current'). However, does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare directly with siblings.

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