vk_get_projects_ea259a6d929f

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, the endpoint usually needs no request body, parameters are top-level fields, and camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted. It does not cover error behavior or response format, but the GET method implies a safe read operation.

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 purpose and each sentence contributes useful information. There is minor redundancy between 'Get one project view' and 'Returns a project view by its ID', but overall it is concise and logically structured.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter GET: it specifies the endpoint, auth, parameter placement, aliases, and body expectation. It does not mention return envelope or errors, but those are less critical for this straightforward read operation.

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 documents both parameters with full coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, which helps with actual invocation.

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 one project view' and provides the exact REST route GET /projects/{project}/views/{id}, making the operation and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'project view' rather than general project operations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description includes technical details like request body and aliases, but never says 'use this for a single project view' or points to alternatives like vikunja_get_project.

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