vk_get_projects_5ec34f7d9c12

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it discloses the index reassignment caveat, that authentication is required, that a request body is not usually needed, and that parameters are top-level with camelCase/snake_case aliases. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but 'GET' implies it, and the behavioral caveat about index reassignment is valuable context.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, raw proxy reference, use case, index reassignment warning, and parameter/authentication notes. There is no fluff or redundant repetition.

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 single-task GET proxy with no output schema and no annotations, this description is quite complete: it explains the unique indexing mechanism, the reference use case, the caveat about reassignment, authentication, and parameter style. It doesn't cover error responses or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, which directly aids invocation. It also notes the request body is not usually required, adding practical context not in the schema.

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 'Get one task by its per-project index', a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vikunja_get_task (likely by ID) and list tasks. It also provides the exact REST endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states it is 'Useful when resolving human-readable references like "PROJ-42" to a canonical task object', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It also warns that long-lived references should use the returned task id instead, implying a when-not-to-use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like vikunja_get_task.

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