vk_get_projects_400b725fb618

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: 'Returns json on error,' 'does not usually require a request body,' 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields,' camelCase/snake_case aliases, and 'Authentication is required.' It does not, however, describe the successful response format (e.g., whether binary image data is returned), which keeps this from a 5.

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 reasonably short but repetitive: 'Get the project background' is effectively restated as 'Get the project background of a specific project.' The additional details are useful, yet the redundancy could be trimmed. It is structured with key facts scattered rather than tightly organized.

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 one-parameter GET proxy, the description covers authentication, error behavior, and parameter passing conventions. However, with no output schema, it fails to explain what a successful response returns (image bytes? JSON?), leaving a notable gap for an agent that needs to interpret results. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as 'Project ID Required' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by clarifying that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names accept camelCase/snake_case aliases, but it does not fundamentally enrich the meaning of the parameter beyond what the schema states.

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: 'Get the project background' and 'Get the project background of a specific project.' It identifies the exact REST endpoint (GET /projects/{id}/background), which distinguishes it from generic project tools like vikunja_get_project. The verb+resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools is provided. The description does not name alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It only gives request-construction details (top-level fields, aliases) and authentication requirements, which are not about selecting this tool over siblings.

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