card_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds some context about scope composition ('project-local 合成用户, 共享项目和个人覆盖'), but the wording is cryptic and adds limited actionable behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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 compact and the main verb-resource pair is front-loaded. The second clause is grammatically awkward, but there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Despite having an output schema and read-only annotation, the description leaves the meaning of 'composite user' and the exact role of scope unresolved, and it gives no guidance on what values id/scope take. This is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain id and scope. It never names id, and scope is only obliquely hinted at through the phrase about project-local, shared project, and personal overrides. This is insufficient to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('读取' / read) and a specific resource: the enablement and sharing baseline of Skill, Rule, or Hook cards. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like card_configure and card_set_shared, though the trailing phrase 'project-local 合成用户...' weakens clarity.

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 read verb implies the tool is for inspecting baseline settings rather than modifying them, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over card_configure or card_set_shared, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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