vrcx_user_relationship_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it identifies VRCX logs as the data source and specifies that the summary includes time spent, join count, and last seen. This gives an agent a good sense of the behavior without contradicting the 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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key output metrics. There is no filler or redundant elaboration; every phrase earns its place.

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 description makes the tool's purpose and read-only nature clear, and an output schema exists to document return shape. However, with two optional parameters and no explanations, it leaves unclear whether the caller must supply at least one identifier and how the parameters interact. This is a meaningful gap for 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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It says 'with a user' but does not explain how userId and displayName are used, whether one is sufficient, or what happens if both are omitted. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description adds essentially no semantic guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('relationship history with a user using VRCX logs'), and names concrete output metrics: time spent, join count, and last seen. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like vrcx_user_relationship_sessions, which handles session-level detail rather than a summary.

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 gives a clear context for the tool—summarizing relationship data from VRCX logs—so an agent can infer when it applies. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as vrcx_user_relationship_sessions, vrcx_memos_user_get, or vrchat_friend_details, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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