vikunja_get_server_info

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

With no annotations present, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the call requires no authentication and that the data is 'public information', which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It also hints at the response content ('version and enabled settings'), though it doesn't describe the full response shape.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main purpose and then adds the key auth detail. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-auth info endpoint, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, the nature of the data, and the auth requirement. It lacks a detailed return format, but the mention of 'version and enabled settings' gives a reasonable expectation of the response content.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, making parameter semantics a non-issue. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail, and the 'no auth token required' note further clarifies the only possible implicit input concern.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get public information about the configured Vikunja instance', and clarifies scope with 'including version and enabled settings'. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve user, project, or task data.

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 when to use the tool: when you need public server info. It also adds a key usage condition ('No auth token is required') that helps an agent know it can be called without credentials. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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