vikunja_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions optional search, filtering, sorting, and expansions, but does not explain pagination behavior, the implications of expansions on response size, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a list tool.

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 immediately states the purpose and then lists optional capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return behavior. It does not mention pagination, response structure, or potential performance implications of expansions. However, the tool is a straightforward listing operation, and the optional parameters are well-documented in the schema, making the description adequate but not complete.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, including details for each parameter. The description adds only a high-level mention of search, filtering, sorting, and expansions, which does not exceed the schema's own explanations. Thus, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists tasks across all accessible projects, distinguishing it from single-task tools like vikunja_get_task and other list tools like vikunja_list_projects. The verb 'list' and resource 'tasks' are specific, and the scope is explicitly broad.

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 phrase 'across all accessible projects' gives clear context for when to use this tool—when you need a broad, cross-project task listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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