vk_get_projects_59697f95509c

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 the endpoint usually requires no request body, that path/query parameters are top-level, that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, and that authentication is required. It does not describe error behavior or return format in detail, but the provided details are valuable.

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, each adding essential information: purpose, endpoint, request body note, parameter behavior, and auth. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, endpoint behavior, parameter handling, and authentication. It could detail pagination or response shape, but for a simple GET users proxy, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that parameters are top-level and that both camelCase and snake_case aliases work, which helps agents understand how to pass id, s, page, and perPage correctly. This goes beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get users on a project.' It clearly states the endpoint (GET /projects/{id}/users) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like vikunja_get_project, which fetch project details rather than user lists.

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 about being a raw Vikunja REST proxy and the endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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