vikunja_filters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'validation' but fails to disclose the behavioral traits of each action (e.g., list is read-only, delete is destructive) or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 short sentence, making it concise but too brief for a tool with multiple actions and a complex parameters object. It is not wastefully long, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of a nested 'parameters' object, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the behavior for each action, the required format for parameters, or the expected output, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the meaning of the 'action' enum values or the structure of the 'parameters' object. No additional meaning is added 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 states 'Manage and build advanced filters for tasks and projects with validation', which clearly indicates the tool deals with filters. However, it does not specify what 'manage' entails beyond the generic verb, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also manage project-related entities.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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