vk_get_projects_59d26cf6f54d

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional return format (buckets for kanban views, tasks otherwise), notes that no request body is usually required, mentions parameter aliases, and states authentication is required. This is substantive behavior disclosure beyond the minimal, though it omits error responses and rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core action 'Get tasks in a project.' Each sentence adds relevant information: endpoint, return behavior, request body, parameter style, and authentication. There is 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?

The tool has 16 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to compensate for the missing response structure. It does explain the primary return types (buckets vs. tasks) but does not describe the shape of task objects, pagination details, or error scenarios. This leaves gaps for a raw proxy with this parameter count.

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 value by explaining that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, which clarifies how to pass parameters. This is useful meta-information beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 'Get tasks in a project' and specifies the exact REST endpoint, making the verb and resource unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that also fetch tasks (e.g., vikunja_list_tasks, vk_get_tasks_*), so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 through 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' and notes that authentication is required, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred scenarios compared to higher-level task-fetching siblings.

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