List projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (id, title, description, identifier, parent) and implies a read-only, permission-scoped operation, but is silent on pagination behavior and on the fact that archived projects are excluded by default.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the return-shape and follow-up-usage details.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, which covers the main gap. Still missing for a 4-param list tool are pagination semantics and the archived-exclusion default, and no annotations back-fill them.

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 coverage is 50%: search and includeArchived are documented, while page and perPage are not, though their types and defaults make them conventional. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.

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+resource ('List Vikunja projects') with the scoping condition 'the user can access', which an agent can distinguish from the singular get_project. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 line 'Use the id with list_tasks or create_task' gives a downstream hand-off hint, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_project or when listing is preferred over fetching a single project. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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