vikunja_task_comments

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only mentions basic operations (add, list) but does not disclose whether comments can be edited, deleted, or if there are prerequisites like authentication or existing tasks. The schema's lack of requirement for 'comment' field when operation='comment' further obscures behavior.

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 of 12 words, which is very concise. However, this brevity sacrifices important details about parameters and operation-specific requirements, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify parameter roles for each operation, leading to confusion. For a tool with two distinct actions, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. The description mentions adding comments (implying 'comment' field) and listing (implying 'id' for task), but does not explain 'commentId' parameter, nor that 'comment' is effectively required for 'comment' operation. This leaves critical gaps 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 the tool manages task comments with two specific operations: adding a comment and listing comments. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other task attributes like labels or assignees.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it is implied for comment management, there are no conditions or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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