vrc_check_weights

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

The description implies a non-destructive check by using words like 'finds,' but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or potential side effects. With no annotations provided, the burden is on the description, and it falls short of full transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a bullet list of findings. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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 simple checking tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not detailed), the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention whether the tool modifies anything or provide more details on output format, but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema only provides type and default for mesh_name. The description adds critical meaning: 'Target mesh. If empty, checks all meshes.' This explains the parameter's effect beyond the schema, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 checks vertex weights for VRChat compatibility, with specific examples of what it finds (unweighted vertices, excessive bone influences, missing vertex groups). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrc_validate or mesh_quality_check.

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 context (VRChat compatibility) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vrc_validate or vrc_fix_model. It lacks exclusionary guidance or comparison to siblings.

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