vrchat_friend_details

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

The description explicitly includes 'read-only', consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also adds behavioral context by specifying what is retrieved (profile, status, location). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds value beyond the annotation.

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 sentence that efficiently captures the tool's core purpose and key parameters. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema (not detailed), the description need not explain return values. It covers two of three parameters and the overall action. The missing explanation for 'includeOffline' is a minor gap, but overall the description is fairly complete for a simple detail retrieval tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'name' and 'userId' (identifying the friend). However, there is no mention of 'includeOffline' boolean, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description adds partial value but not complete for all 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a friend's profile, status, and location details'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vrchat_friends_list (list all) and vrchat_friends_search (search), as it targets a specific friend. The read-only qualifier adds clarity.

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 description explains that the tool can be used 'by display name or userId', indicating two modes of identification. While it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use, the purpose is clear enough for typical use cases. A score of 4 reflects a clear context with no exclusions.

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