vk_get_projects_d22c15625cae

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose several behavioral aspects: authentication is required, the endpoint usually does not require a body, path/query parameters are top-level fields, and name aliases are accepted. However, it does not mention error handling, response format, or pagination, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 mostly front-loaded with the purpose, but it contains redundancy: 'Get all project views for a project' is repeated in 'Returns all project views for a sepcific project.' It also includes a typo. The extra details are useful but could be tightened to remove 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 simple GET tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, endpoint, authentication, body requirement, and parameter behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though the lack of an output schema means return details are only partially explained.

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 schema already describes the 'project' parameter as 'Project ID Required.' (100% coverage), 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, providing extra semantic detail beyond 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 clearly states 'Get all project views for a project', using a specific verb and resource, and explicitly identifies the REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vikunja_get_project and other vk_get_projects_* variants that target different project operations.

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 clear context that this is a raw proxy for GET /projects/{project}/views, indicating when to use it (when project views are needed). It also notes that a request body is usually not required, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the full 'when-not' guidance.

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