vrchat_gallery_images

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: fetches all pages internally, is scoped to the signed-in account, and returns a total count. It does not mention rate limits or authentication nuances, but the output schema and annotations cover the remaining context adequately.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information: scope, return type, total count, internal pagination, and fileId reuse. No redundant or filler wording.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers everything needed: what it lists, whose gallery it lists, what it returns, pagination behavior, and a practical tip for using the returned fileId. Nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters and the input schema confirms no properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies here.

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 action and resource: 'List every image in the signed-in account gallery' with output details of compact metadata and total count. This clearly differs from sibling tools like vrchat_gallery_image_upload and vrchat_gallery_image_delete, which perform mutations.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: 'reuse fileId when attaching existing artwork' tells the agent why this tool is useful, and 'Fetches all pages internally' signals the agent does not need to paginate. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare against alternative listing tools, but no close sibling alternative exists.

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