vk_get_projects_bea128e9f35a

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that authentication is required, the endpoint does not usually require a request body, and the parameter alias behavior. These are useful behavioral details beyond the schema, though response format and error handling are not covered.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence, but the same sentence is repeated verbatim ('Get all api webhook targets for the specified project.'), which is redundant and costs conciseness. The rest is efficient, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 simple GET endpoint with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers most necessary context: purpose, auth requirement, body expectations, and parameter handling. It does not describe return shape, but the outcome (webhook targets) is implied, making it adequate for selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by noting that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that camelCase and snake_case aliases are accepted, which is not evident from the schema 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 clearly states 'Get all api webhook targets for the specified project' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling project tools by specifying webhooks. The explicit mapping to GET /projects/{id}/webhooks further removes ambiguity.

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 when webhook targets are needed and gives helpful instructions on parameter placement and aliases, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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