vrcx_user_relationship_summary

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

An annotation already provides readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the data source (VRCX logs) and the specific fields returned. It does not contradict annotations. Minor improvement could include behavior when user is not found or freshness of logs, but current info is sufficient.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose, data source, and output fields. No extraneous words; it is well-structured and front-loaded with the critical verb and resource.

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?

For a tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers core purpose and output fields but omits parameter usage guidance and edge-case behavior (e.g., user not found). With richer schema context, a more complete description would add value.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions within the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameters (userId, displayName) or how to identify the user, leaving the agent to infer from names only. This is a significant gap for a tool with two identification 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 specifies the verb 'summarize' and the resource 'your relationship history with a user'. It also identifies the data source (VRCX logs) and explicitly lists the output fields (time spent, join count, last seen), making it distinct from sibling tools that are likely live API calls or raw session data.

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 that the tool is for local log-based summaries rather than live data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like vrcx_user_relationship_sessions or vrchat_friend_details. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing VRCX logs) or when not to use it.

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