vk_get_user_63af5972a27d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that authentication is required, notes the body is usually unnecessary, and describes the return fields (IDs and created dates). It doesn't explicitly call out read-only safety or rate limits, but the GET method and return description give reasonable transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is wordy and repetitive: 'Returns the caldav tokens' and 'Return the IDs and created dates of all caldav tokens' convey the same information. It could be condensed to two clear sentences without losing any key 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?

For a zero-parameter GET tool, the description adequately covers the endpoint, return content, authentication requirement, and parameter style. It lacks a concrete response shape or error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. However, the description includes generic boilerplate about path/query parameters and camelCase/snake_case aliases, which is misleading given the schema has no properties and additionalProperties is false. This generic guidance adds no real value and could confuse the agent.

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 it returns caldav tokens for the current user and specifies the exact REST endpoint (GET /user/settings/token/caldav). This distinguishes it from sibling user-related tools like vikunja_get_current_user by naming the precise resource and returned data.

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?

It provides clear usage context: it is a raw Vikunja REST proxy, usually requires no request body, path/query parameters are top-level fields, and authentication is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.

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