vrchat_status_page_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'read-only'. It also adds value by detailing the specific data included (up/down state, graph values, incidents, maintenance), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose, and includes all essential elements without any redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 tool has three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and key data types but lacks explanation of the parameters. This leaves an agent uncertain about how to use 'maxItems' and 'recentHours' effectively.

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 input schema has three parameters with 0% coverage in description. The description mentions graph values which hints at the 'includeGraphs' parameter, but it does not explain 'maxItems' or 'recentHours'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 provides a compact status-page overview, listing specific data points like up/down state, graph values, incidents, and maintenance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as 'vrchat_status_get' and 'vrchat_auth_status' by focusing on a comprehensive yet compact overview.

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 mentions it is read-only and provides a compact overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vrchat_status_get' or 'vrchat_auth_status'. No usage scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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