vikunja_task_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the three operations without mentioning any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, whether operations are reversible, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavior beyond the bare functionality.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It lists operations but does not differentiate them or provide any hierarchical organization. While it is not verbose, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify parameter usage per operation (e.g., which params are needed for 'relate' vs 'list'). This leads to ambiguity for the agent when selecting and invoking the tool.

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 description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema_description_coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (e.g., what 'relationKind' values imply, or that 'otherTaskId' is needed for relate/unrelate). The enum values are uninterpreted.

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 task relationships: relate tasks, unrelate tasks, list relations', clearly indicating the verb (manage/relate/unrelate/list) and resource (task relationships). It distinguishes from siblings like vikunja_task_crud which handles individual tasks, thus earning a high score.

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 implies that this tool is for managing task relationships but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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