vk_get_user_09683fc66a78

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the burden and does disclose useful behavior: raw proxy pass-through, auth required, no request body usually, top-level path/query params with camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it omits return format (binary/image vs JSON), exact semantics of 'usually', and any side-effect/error behavior, so transparency is only partially met.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, using four short sentences. The 'path and query parameters' and alias sentences are generic boilerplate that could be trimmed for a zero-parameter tool, but overall it is compact and 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?

For a low-complexity, parameterless GET proxy, the description covers endpoint, purpose, auth, and body expectations. No output schema exists, so the agent still lacks a precise return format specification, but the description gives enough operational context for a simple QR-code retrieval.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description's generic note about top-level fields and aliases adds little specific meaning but does not conflict with the empty schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Totp QR Code' and explicitly maps to 'GET /user/settings/totp/qrcode', stating it 'Returns a qr code for easier setup at end user's devices.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly separates it from the many sibling vk_get_user_* and other Vikunja endpoints.

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 implied context ('for easier setup at end user's devices') and operational notes (auth required, no request body usually), but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over an alternative or explains differences among sibling user endpoints. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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