vikunja_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and adds the scope of visibility, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'visible' beyond user access.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words or repetition of schema data.

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 simple list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or return shape, but the schema covers the parameters, and the behavior is simple enough to infer. However, given no output schema and no annotation, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the already detailed schema properties (page, search, per_page, is_archived, include_permissions).

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 the verb ('List'), the resource ('projects'), and the scope ('visible to the authenticated Vikunja user'), distinguishing it from singular get_project and mutation 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?

The context is implied: use this to list projects for the current user. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other list tools (e.g., vk_get_projects_* siblings) or exclude cases like needing a single project by ID.

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