vk_get_tasks_559e34c16db8

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states authentication is required, explains the raw proxy nature, notes that no request body is usually needed, and clarifies that both camelCase and snake_case parameter names are accepted. This gives the agent a solid mental model of how the tool behaves beyond the schema.

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 six sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds unique information. There is no fluff or repetition. The structure flows from purpose to endpoint to return type to operational details.

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?

The description covers purpose, endpoint, return type, authentication, request body expectations, and parameter naming conventions. It does not explicitly explain pagination behavior or error cases, but the schema documents pagination parameters and the description says it returns an array. Given no output schema or annotations, this is reasonably complete for an API proxy tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are supported. This clarifies how to pass parameters, which is not evident from the schema alone. It does not redundantly re-explain each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all assignees for a task.' It identifies the exact REST endpoint and return type, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vikunja_get_task or vikunja_list_tasks. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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: you call this when you need the list of assignees for a task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough. However, it lacks direct comparison to sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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