vk_get_user_e91f706eeea8

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns an unsorted collection of timezones, requires authentication, does not usually need a request body, and clarifies parameter aliases. This goes beyond the minimum and sets correct expectations for the raw proxy nature.

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 consists of four sentences that each provide useful information: purpose, endpoint, behavior (unsorted), request body, parameter naming, and authentication. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 GET endpoint with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, sorting caveat, authentication, and request body expectations. It does not specify the exact response format (e.g., list of strings vs objects) but this is not critical for a timezone list.

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 is empty and there are zero parameters. The description adds generic parameter naming conventions (camelCase/snake_case aliases, top-level fields) which are not strictly necessary but do not hurt. Since there are no specific parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get all available time zones on this vikunja instance.' It also identifies the exact REST endpoint (GET /user/timezones), which distinguishes it from other user-related tools in the sibling list.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (when you need time zones for the Vikunja instance) and even explains that availability depends on the system. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the special nature of timezones makes usage fairly obvious.

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