vk_get_user_ee38a5cfdcfc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that authentication is required, that the request body is usually unnecessary, and that path/query parameters are top-level fields with camelCase/snake_case aliases. It also labels itself as a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy,' implying the response is the raw API result. This is useful but does not cover error behavior or return format in detail.

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 structured in clear, functional sentences. However, there is slight redundancy: 'Get all user-level webhook targets' and 'Get all webhook targets configured for the current user' convey the same idea. Otherwise, each sentence adds new information, and the length is acceptable for the detail provided.

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 parameterless GET tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the exact endpoint, scope (user-level vs project-specific), authentication, request body expectation, and parameter naming conventions. An agent can invoke this tool without ambiguity regarding its purpose or required inputs.

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 with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about how parameters would be handled (top-level fields, aliases), but since no parameters exist, this is not essential. It does not need to explain individual parameter semantics because there are none.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all user-level webhook targets.' It also clarifies scope by contrasting with 'not project-specific,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vk_get_webhooks_7a215dc6e786. The explicit REST endpoint (GET /user/settings/webhooks) further anchors its purpose.

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 gives clear context by stating this targets the current user's webhooks and is not project-specific, which implies when to use it. It also notes that a request body is usually not required and that authentication is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for project webhooks or list exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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