vrchat_get_friends_list

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 lists retrievable fields but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination handling (implied by offset/n parameters but not explained), or error conditions. The tool likely reads data (implied by 'Retrieve'), but this isn't explicitly stated as safe or read-only.

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 appropriately sized but poorly structured: it starts with a clear purpose sentence, then devotes the rest to a bulleted list of fields without integrating parameter or usage context. The list is exhaustive but could be more concise by grouping related fields or moving details to an output schema. It's front-loaded but loses focus.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It details return fields but omits critical context: parameter semantics, authentication needs, pagination behavior, and error handling. Without an output schema, the bulleted list helps, but overall coverage is inadequate for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (offset, n, offline) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they do, their effects (e.g., pagination with offset/n, filtering offline friends), or default values. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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's purpose as 'Retrieve a list of VRChat friend information' with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('VRChat friend information'), which distinguishes it from siblings like vrchat_get_current_user or vrchat_search_avatars. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential list operations like vrchat_list_favorites, though the focus on friends is clear.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like vrchat_send_friend_request for adding friends, or specify scenarios (e.g., checking online status). Usage is implied by the name but not articulated.

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