vk_get_projects_a99a3200bd60

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 authentication requirements, the 'no request body' expectation, and parameter naming conventions, but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is safe/read-only beyond the implied 'Get'.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds meaningful information—endpoint, behavior, parameter style, aliases, and authentication—without unnecessary 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?

The description is adequate for a simple proxy tool but has gaps: no output schema or annotations are present, and the description does not explain the response structure, pagination behavior, or potential error cases. It covers the essentials but lacks deeper context.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining that parameters are top-level fields and that original names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, which supplements 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 teams on a project' and specifies the exact REST endpoint 'GET /projects/{id}/teams'. This clearly identifies the operation as retrieving team access for a given project, distinguishing it from other project-related tools in the sibling list.

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 useful context about being a raw REST proxy and that authentication is required, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like other project getters. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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