vikunja_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists capabilities but does not mention that operations like delete or archive are destructive, require authentication, or have side effects. The description is too high-level.

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, which is concise but sacrifices important detail. It could be expanded with structured information about subcommands without being overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, many subcommands, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the subcommand enum, required parameters, or return values, making it hard for the AI to use correctly.

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?

The schema has 20 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description fails to explain any parameters, such as how subcommand selects the action or the meaning of id, projectId, etc. This leaves the AI without crucial context for proper invocation.

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 clearly states it manages projects with CRUD, hierarchy, and sharing, which matches the subcommand enum. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'projects', which are a different resource than tasks, buckets, labels, etc. However, it could be more specific about what 'manage' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vikunja_task_crud or vikunja_bucket. The description does not provide any context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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