vk_get_user_afff25db6cb4

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions that the endpoint does not usually require a request body, explains parameter alias conventions, and notes that authentication is required. This gives the agent necessary operational context beyond the bare action.

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 well-structured and front-loads the primary purpose. There is slight redundancy between 'Return user avatar setting' and 'Returns the current user's avatar setting', but overall each sentence adds relevant operational detail without excessive verbosity.

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 simple read-only endpoint with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, parameter handling, and the raw proxy nature. It does not describe the exact response format, but the resource name and endpoint make this less critical. The information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds value by explaining how path and query parameters should be supplied and that aliases are accepted, which is useful for agents that might expect parameters. This exceeds the baseline.

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 'Return user avatar setting' and identifies the exact REST endpoint (GET /user/settings/avatar). This specifies a unique verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from sibling user-related tools by focusing specifically on the avatar setting.

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 some usage context by noting this is a raw Vikunja REST proxy and that path/query parameters are top-level fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vikunja_get_current_user or other vk_get_user_* tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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