vk_get_projects_25ac8903752b

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, that a request body is usually not needed, and that parameters accept aliases. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only (though the GET method implies it) or describe error handling or return format details, leaving some gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. There is minor redundancy between 'Gets one project' and 'Returns a project by its ID,' but overall every sentence contributes useful information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, HTTP method, authentication, parameter handling, and return value. It does not mention alternatives or error responses, but for a straightforward GET proxy, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a description, so as per the rubric, the baseline is 3. The description adds notes about top-level parameters and camelCase/snake_case aliases, which provides some extra context but doesn't significantly deepen the understanding of the 'id' parameter itself.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Gets one project.' It also names the exact REST endpoint 'GET /projects/{id}', which distinguishes it from list, create, delete, and update project tools. This provides unambiguous purpose clarity.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to fetch a single project by its ID. It also notes that authentication is required and explains parameter naming conventions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one project' scope effectively differentiates it from list operations.

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