vk_get_labels_f4188d175a30

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details: authentication required, no request body typically needed, path/query parameters as top-level fields, and camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it omits error handling, response format, or behavior for missing/invalid IDs, which limits completeness.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—REST endpoint, return, request body, parameter style, and auth. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key operational aspects: what it does, how parameters are passed, auth requirement, and naming aliases. It could add error behavior or return value detail, but for a simple GET proxy, this is adequate.

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 'id' as 'Label ID Required' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying parameter passing conventions (top-level fields, camelCase/snake_case aliases) and that no request body is usually required, which helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Gets one label' and specifies the raw Vikunja REST proxy for GET /labels/{id}, distinguishing it from list operations by emphasizing retrieval by ID. This is a specific verb+resource pair that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage when a single label ID is known ('Returns one label by its ID') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the sibling 'vikunja_list_labels' for fetching all labels. It provides no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, only implicit context.

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