vrchat_group_posts_recent

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

The description adds 'read-only' which is already indicated by the readOnlyHint annotation. It fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or performance implications.

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 (one sentence), but it is under-informative given the tool's complexity. However, it contains no fluff, so the conciseness itself is good.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain return structure, parameter usage, or any contextual details. With zero schema coverage, this is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 information about any of the 6 parameters. This is a critical gap as the agent cannot infer parameter meanings from the definition alone.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('recent posts for a group'), which is distinct from sibling tools like vrchat_group_profile or vrchat_group_members.

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; no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage among many similar group tools.

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