vk_get_tasks_4ef472b350b5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication is required, that a request body is usually not needed, and that parameters are top-level with alias support. However, it does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature, response format, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving notable 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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then adding relevant specifics about request body, parameter formats, aliases, and authentication. There is slight redundancy between 'Get tasks' and 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy for GET /tasks,' but overall it is efficient and every sentence adds useful information.

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?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape, pagination behavior, and potential errors. It omits all of these, instead focusing on request mechanics. This makes the description incomplete for the tool's complexity and leaves the agent without guidance on interpreting the response.

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%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds important semantic value by clarifying that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that original names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and helps the agent construct valid requests.

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 tasks' and identifies itself as a raw proxy for the Vikunja GET /tasks endpoint, with the additional scope 'Returns all tasks on any project the user has access to.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from single-task or project-specific 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is a raw REST proxy that returns all tasks across any accessible project, implying a comprehensive, cross-project listing scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the raw-proxy designation and scope give strong contextual guidance.

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