vk_get_info_738181b06d10

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that auth is not required, the endpoint returns specific fields, and parameter handling conventions. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple GET /info endpoint this is sufficient.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. However, it includes extraneous boilerplate about parameter aliases and has a minor grammar issue ('Vikunja This endpoint'). Still, it earns its place with useful 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (zero params, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned and the call constraints. The phrase 'various settings' is vague, but it names key fields and specifies no auth, making it sufficiently complete for this endpoint.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description mentions 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' and naming aliases, which adds context but may be boilerplate since no parameters actually exist. It does not need to explain individual parameters.

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 explicitly states it is a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy for GET /info' and lists what it returns (version, frontendurl, motd, settings). This clearly distinguishes it from higher-level sibling tools like vikunja_get_server_info by highlighting the raw proxy nature.

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 invocation details (no request body, parameter aliases, no auth) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage via 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' but does not state exclusions or compare with sibling tools.

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