vk_get_backgrou_a6990b2bc73a

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: the thumbnail is cropped to max 200px width, errors return JSON, authentication is required, and parameter aliases (camelCase/snake_case) are accepted. Missing details about success response format but still strong coverage.

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 mostly concise but repeats 'Get an unsplash thumbnail image' verbatim at the beginning and later. This redundancy could be trimmed without losing information. The structure is otherwise front-loaded with purpose and then details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, cropping behavior, error format, and auth. However, it does not describe what a successful response contains (e.g., image binary content type), and the schema marks the parameter as not required while its property description says 'Required', which is inconsistent and could confuse the agent.

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 schema already describes the 'image' parameter as 'Unsplash Image ID Required' (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that path/query parameters are top-level and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, which is beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify the boolean/number types in the schema, but the core meaning is well covered.

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 'Get an unsplash thumbnail image' and specifies the exact REST endpoint ('GET /backgrounds/unsplash/image/{image}/thumb'), which distinguishes it from sibling background tools. The verb 'Get' and resource 'unsplash thumbnail image' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides usage context such as 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' and notes that 'This endpoint does not usually require a request body'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like other background getters, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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