vrchat_world_profile

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, so the description's 'read-only' adds no new behavioral information. The description does not disclose behavior around name resolution, ambiguous matches, field filtering, or response shape. With annotations present, the bar for added context is lower, but this description still provides almost nothing beyond them.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and lookup keys front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the parenthetical 'read-only' is redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 tool has five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no required parameters, and a large sibling set, but the description only addresses two of the parameters. The output schema may document return values, but the description still leaves important input semantics and behavioral context unclear, making it insufficient for fully correct invocation.

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 for the five parameters. It only explains that 'worldId' and 'name' are lookup identifiers, leaving 'fields', 'compact', and 'maxArrayLength' entirely unexplained. This is partial compensation but not enough for a tool with completely undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('world profile'), and the lookup keys ('by worldId or name'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like vrchat_worlds_search.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a worldId or name and want the world's profile. However, it does not provide any explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer instead, such as vrchat_worlds_search for discovery.

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