vikunja_projects

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions CRUD operations but fails to detail side effects (e.g., archive/unarchive, sharing implications, authentication needs) or hierarchy consequences.

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 concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and is under-informative. It could be improved by listing key subcommands or capabilities.

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 20 parameters, no output schema, and many suboperations, the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no details on pagination, sharing, hierarchy commands, or how to use the subcommand parameter.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It doesn't describe the subcommand enum or other fields like id, title, pagination, etc.

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. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other resources (tasks, labels, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project-related tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites or context for using specific subcommands.

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