vrchat_favorites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'compact outputs' and enumerates readable resources, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or output structure.

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 a single concise sentence (15 words) that front-loads the purpose. It wastes no words, but could be more structured by explaining the main parameter (view) that controls which resource is read.

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 tool's complexity (20 parameters, multiple enum options, an output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not cover how to use the view parameter or other key parameters, leaving the agent under-informed for selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 20 parameters. The tool's behavior depends heavily on parameters like view, tag, type, but the description offers no guidance.

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 explicitly states it reads favorites, groups, limits, and avatars, and specifies read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools (favorite_add, favorite_remove) and other read tools by focusing on favorites.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios. The description only states 'read-only' and 'compact outputs' without context.

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