Get project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a non-mutating read, what happens on a missing or unauthorized id (error vs. empty), or anything about permissions. For a mutation-free lookup the risk is low, but the disclosure gap remains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and keying parameter come first. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than truly concise, which keeps it off a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the minimum needed to invoke it correctly. It could usefully note that it returns a single project object and how missing ids behave, but nothing essential is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented as 'Project id' in the schema, so the description correctly need not repeat it. It adds no format or range meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one Vikunja project by id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from list_projects and the task/label siblings. It stops short of 5 only because it adds no scoping detail (e.g., whether archived/deleted projects are returned).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. An agent can infer it is the single-item counterpart to list_projects, but the description never says so, nor does it mention prerequisites or what to do if the id is unknown.

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