vk_get_user_9d50b2668fcf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: request body is usually not required, path/query parameters are top-level fields, camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, and authentication is required. It does not describe the response format, but that is partially mitigated by the lack of an output 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 concise at four sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, proxy nature, request body, parameter conventions, auth). No filler or redundant content.

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 tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, auth, and request body expectations. It lacks details on the response structure, but that may be expected from a raw proxy and is not critical given the simplicity. Overall, it is adequately complete for the complexity level.

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, and schema coverage is high. The description adds context about parameter conventions (top-level fields, aliases), which is useful for understanding the proxy pattern, though it is generic given there are no actual parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not reduce quality.

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 the tool fetches the current user data export via GET /user/export. The verb 'Get' and resource 'user data export' are specific, and 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' distinguishes it from higher-level user endpoints like vikunja_get_current_user.

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 implies usage when you need the user data export, and the 'raw proxy' note suggests it is for lower-level access. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this versus alternatives like vikunja_get_current_user, so guidance is only implied.

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