vrchat_list_favorite_groups

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 the tool returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond offset parameter), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core functionality.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly in a broader context with sibling tools.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (n, offset, ownerId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by owner ID, but it does not provide additional context like default behavior for missing ownerId or practical usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('list of favorite groups owned by a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vrchat_list_favorites' or 'vrchat_list_favorited_worlds', which might handle similar list operations but for different resource types, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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. The description mentions filtering by owner ID, but it does not specify scenarios for using this tool over other list or search tools in the sibling set, such as 'vrchat_list_favorites' or 'vrchat_search_groups', leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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