vk_groups_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination (implied by 'count' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the returned list. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps. For a read operation in a social media API context, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (user_id, filter, fields, count) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'filter' types are available or what 'fields' might include. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of communities the user is a member of'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like vk_groups_get_by_id (which likely fetches specific groups) and vk_friends_get (which targets friends rather than communities). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for VK communities/groups, though this is implied by the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose vk_groups_get_by_id (e.g., for specific group details) or vk_wall_get (e.g., for community posts), nor does it specify prerequisites like user authentication or context for the 'user_id' parameter. Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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