vrchat_group_roles

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

The description reiterates the read-only nature already declared in annotations and adds the 'compact fields' detail, which adds some value. However, it does not disclose that no parameters are required, potential default behavior, or any rate limits or authorization needs.

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 conveys the core functionality without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list operation.

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 complexity of three parameters (one enum) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details about parameter semantics and usage context, especially for the groupId/shortCode distinction. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the lack of input guidance.

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, but it provides no information about the three parameters: view enum, groupId, or shortCode. Without explanation, the agent cannot infer their usage or relationship.

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 tool lists group roles or role templates, with the qualifier 'compact fields (read-only)'. It uses specific verbs and resources, effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool vrchat_group_roles_manage, which likely handles 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on how to choose between the 'roles' and 'templates' views or when to specify groupId versus shortCode. The agent receives no contextual decision support.

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