vk_get_tasks_07bdccc5bc22

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states authentication is required, read access to the task is necessary, no request body is typically needed, and parameter aliases are accepted. It does not describe return format or error handling, but for a simple GET this is reasonable.

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 somewhat redundant, repeating 'Get a task comment' twice, and includes a minor grammatical error ('need to have' instead of 'needs to have'). It is not excessively long, but the redundancy reduces conciseness.

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 read-only GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, endpoint, permissions, auth, and parameter style. It does not explain return values, but that is often inferred, and lack of alternative tool references slightly limits completeness.

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?

Although the schema already documents all six parameter variants with descriptions, the description adds value by explaining that parameters are top-level fields and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, clarifying how to structure the 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 a task comment' and provides the exact REST endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vikunja_list_task_comments by specifying it retrieves a single comment.

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 usage context, including the need for read access to the task and authentication. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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