vk_get_labels_755169797d86

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses visibility criteria, optional request body, and auth needs. However, it omits response format, pagination behavior details, and error scenarios.

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 front-loaded with purpose and each sentence provides useful information. It is slightly long but not wasteful, balancing detail with readability.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify return value shape and pagination behavior. It covers purpose, visibility, and auth well but leaves response structure unspecified. For a simple list-get operation, it is 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?

Schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that parameters are top-level query fields and accept camelCase/snake_case aliases, which is not in the schema.

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 retrieves labels accessible to the user, with specific scope details. The 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' hint distinguishes it from higher-level siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides usage context like parameter aliases, top-level fields, and authentication requirements, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as vikunja_list_labels.

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