vrchat_group_roles

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'read-only'. It adds the behavioral detail of returning 'compact fields', but otherwise does not disclose further side effects, permissions, or response behavior beyond what the schema/output schema might provide.

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 one compact sentence with the action front-loaded, no filler, and no redundant restating of the tool name. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Although an output schema exists and readOnly annotation reduces safety concerns, the description does not adequately cover parameter semantics for identifying a group (groupId vs shortCode). An agent would likely need additional context to invoke this reliably, making it incomplete despite its simple appearance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'view' distinction (roles vs templates) but does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'groupId' or 'shortCode' — for example, whether they are alternatives, required, or how they select the group. This leaves key parameters ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('group roles or role templates') and signals 'read-only', which distinguishes it from the sibling management tool vrchat_group_roles_manage. It also notes compact fields, making the output scope explicit.

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 statement clearly frames the tool as a read-only listing operation, implying it is for retrieval rather than management. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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