vrc_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool reports metrics and rank but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation with no side effects. Behavioral details like whether it modifies data or requires specific permissions are omitted.

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 concise (64 words) and well-structured: a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet-like list of reported metrics and a separate parameter section. No redundant information is present.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main purpose, metrics, and parameter usage. Slightly missing context about the rating scale or application to VRChat models, but still adequate.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of both parameters: 'target' with allowed values 'pc' or 'quest' and default, and 'object_name' with behavior when empty. This adds meaningful context 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 clearly states the tool validates a model against VRChat performance rank limits and lists the specific metrics reported (polygon count, bone count, material count, mesh count, rank). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrc_check_export_ready which may have different scopes.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vrc_check_export_ready, vrc_fix_model). The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer.

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