vrchat_get_invite_message

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 adds valuable context about admin credential requirements, which is crucial for authentication needs. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (e.g., message content format). The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by important context (admin requirement) and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity), but it's efficient and well-organized.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics for one parameter, but lacks details on return values (e.g., what data is returned), error cases, or behavioral traits like rate limits. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return format, which it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 parameters (userId, messageType, slot) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds some meaning by explaining the 'messageType' enum values (e.g., 'message = Message during a normal invite'), which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's enum list. However, it doesn't add significant value for other parameters, aligning with the baseline for high 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's purpose: 'Returns a specific invite message.' It specifies the verb ('Returns') and resource ('invite message'), making it distinct from siblings like 'vrchat_list_invite_messages' (which lists messages) or 'vrchat_request_invite' (which sends invites). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the core function.

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 clear context for usage: 'Admin Credentials are required to view messages of other users!' This indicates when to use it (for admin-level access) and implies when not to use it (for non-admin users). It doesn't name specific alternatives or provide detailed exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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