vk_get_projects_f38653f9871e

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral context: authentication is required, request body is usually not needed, parameters are top-level fields, and camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted. This goes beyond what the schema discloses.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the phrase 'Get all projects a user has access to' is repeated, which is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, raw proxy nature, authentication, request body, and parameter handling. It does not describe return structure, but 'Returns all projects a user has access to' gives a high-level expectation.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that parameter names accept both camelCase and snake_case aliases, which is not obvious 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 the action: 'Get all projects a user has access to,' and identifies the tool as a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy for GET /projects,' providing a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from other vk_get_projects_* siblings, but the raw proxy context offers some distinction.

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 through 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' and mentions authentication and lack of request body, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced.

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