vikunja_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' indicates a read-only operation, and there are no obvious side effects. However, the description does not address behaviors like error handling, permissions, or response format. For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but not rich.

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 ('Get a single project by ID.') that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity and informativeness.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how to invoke it (pass a project ID). While it omits details like return structure or not-found behavior, these are not critical for selection and invocation given the simplicity of the operation.

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 already describes `project_id` as 'Vikunja project ID.' with type and constraints, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely says 'by ID,' adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get a single project by ID' uses a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('project'), and a scoping condition ('by ID'). This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like vikunja_list_projects, which retrieves multiple projects.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need exactly one project and have its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and the presence of vikunja_list_projects make the context obvious. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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