vk_get_users_ca0e1629bee9

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses authentication requirement, that a request body is usually not needed, parameter top-level field behavior, camelCase/snake_case aliases, and privacy-dependent search conditions. Missing return format or behavior when 's' is omitted, but still substantial disclosure.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, how search works, and parameter/auth behaviors. No wasted words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, search semantics, auth, and parameter handling. The only notable gap is the unspecified behavior when the optional parameter is omitted (e.g., returns all users?), but overall it is adequately 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?

Schema has one param 's' with a minimal description. The description adds meaning by explaining what kinds of searches are supported (username, name, email) and clarifies parameter naming conventions. This goes beyond the schema's 'The search criteria. Optional.'

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 'Get users' and specifically 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy for GET /users', then explains search by username, name, or email. This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that distinguishes it from sibling user tools (e.g., vikunja_get_current_user or vk_get_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 gives clear context for when to use (search for users) and explains search constraints, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. The privacy caveat for name/email search adds useful context.

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