vrchat_user_profile

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'read-only' qualifier is consistent with that, so no contradiction. The description adds the optional paged-groups behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it discloses nothing about lookup failure, precedence between userId and username, or output-shaping behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary purpose stated first and the optional feature second. Zero wasted words. It is efficient, though slightly too terse given it is the only documentation source for a 9-parameter schema.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values and readOnlyHint covers safety, but the input side is severely underdocumented: an agent cannot determine how to identify the target user (which of userId or username to use, precedence, mutual exclusivity), what fields/compact/maxArrayLength control, or the semantics of the three group pagination parameters. Inadequate for a 9-param, 0-coverage, 0-required tool.

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 carry the documentation burden for 9 parameters. It conceptually covers the group-related parameters ('paged list of the user's groups' maps to includeGroups, groupOffset, groupMaxPages, groupPageSize), but leaves the core identification parameters (userId vs username), fields, compact, and maxArrayLength entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a user profile') with a read-only qualifier. The 'user' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling profile tools like vrchat_avatar_profile, vrchat_world_profile, and vrchat_group_profile, though it does not explicitly differentiate from vrchat_me or vrchat_user_groups.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. With over 70 siblings including the overlapping vrchat_user_groups and vrchat_me, an agent gets no help deciding between this tool and those alternatives. The groups feature is mentioned but not framed as a routing decision.

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