vrchat_auth_status

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=true. It does not describe what the tool returns, side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description should provide more 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 extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It is under-specification rather than efficient communication. A single phrase does not serve the agent's need to understand the tool.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the meaning or use of the output. Even for a simple auth check, a sentence like 'Returns the current authentication status of the user (logged in/out, user ID, etc.)' would be expected.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is fully self-documenting (100% coverage). The description does not need to add param info, but it also fails to provide any additional context about the output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already accounts for parameters.

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 'Auth status.' is a tautology of the tool name and does not specify what aspect of authentication status is returned, e.g., whether it checks login state, token validity, or user identity. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like vrchat_status_get or vrchat_auth_begin.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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