vrchat_user_groups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by noting the tool is 'cache-backed' (data may be stale) and limits output to 'id + name only', which supplements the read-only nature. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and constraints with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (documenting return values), the description fails to provide guidance on the 5 parameters, usage context, or how caching affects behavior. For a tool with multiple parameters, this lack of parameter semantics and usage guidelines leaves the agent under-informed.

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 does not mention any of the 5 parameters (offset, userId, maxPages, pageSize, username). Consequently, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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'), the resource ('a user's groups'), and constraints ('id + name only, cache-backed'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling group tools like vrchat_groups_search and vrchat_group_profile.

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 implies usage via 'cache-backed' suggesting lightweight retrieval, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like vrchat_groups_search or vrchat_group_members. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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