vk_get_kind_0ad7494fdd0d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no request body is usually required, path/query parameters are top-level, camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, and authentication is required. This adds meaningful behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe pagination.

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 relatively concise but contains redundancy: 'Get all reactions for an entity' is repeated almost verbatim as 'Returns all reactions for an entity'. There is also a missing period after 'entity' before 'This'. The redundancy wastes a sentence that could be removed.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, parameter handling, aliases, and authentication. It misses minor details like potential pagination or the exact response structure, but it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that parameters are top-level and accept aliases, which is crucial for correct invocation. The schema already provides the allowed values for 'kind'.

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 all reactions for an entity' and specifies the exact REST endpoint 'GET /{kind}/{id}/reactions'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like vk_get_tasks or vk_post_kind.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: it is a raw proxy for fetching reactions, and it explains how parameters are passed (top-level) and that authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 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.