vrchat_worlds_favorites

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

The description adds the behavioral note 'compact results', which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limiting, or what happens when no favorites exist, so the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It does not break down key behaviors or parameter roles, making it too brief given 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?

Despite having 16 parameters and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description offers no information about filtering, pagination, sorting, or output format. It fails to provide a complete picture for a tool of this complexity.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of any of the 16 parameters, including important filtering and sorting options. This leaves an agent with no understanding of how to form queries or what each parameter does.

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 favorited worlds and mentions 'compact results', which hints at a different output format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vrchat_favorites (which lists favorites generally) or vrchat_worlds_search, limiting how well an agent can distinguish it.

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 like vrchat_worlds_profile for full details or vrchat_favorites for other favorite types. The description only says 'read-only', which is already annotated, offering no practical usage context.

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