vk_get_projects_9602e3579c88

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses authentication requirements and that this is a GET without a usual request body, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects, falling short of full transparency.

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 fairly brief and front-loaded with the purpose. However, there is a minor grammatical run-on ('...for a given project This endpoint...') that slightly reduces clarity, but it remains compact and free of filler.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the endpoint, authentication, and parameter aliases, but it does not provide details on link share response structure or clarify required parameters (schema marks project as 'Required' but no required list). It is adequate for invocation but leaves gaps for a fully self-sufficient agent.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that camelCase and snake_case aliases are accepted (e.g., perPage/per_page), which helps agents construct calls correctly.

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 action 'Get all link shares for a project' and names the exact REST endpoint (GET /projects/{project}/shares), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vikunja_get_project or other vk_get_projects_* proxies. This satisfies the verb+resource+scope criterion.

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 provides context as a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' and notes that a request body is usually not required, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or list exclusions. It implies usage for fetching link shares, but there is no direct when-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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