vrchat_list_favorited_worlds

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 lists favorited worlds with filters, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List favorited worlds') and adds a qualifier ('by query filters'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output structure (e.g., list format, error cases). Given the complexity of filtering and sorting favorited worlds, more context is needed to guide effective usage beyond what the parameter schema provides.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters (featured, sort, n, order) with enums and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'query filters' generically, but doesn't explain how these parameters interact or typical usage patterns (e.g., combining sort and order). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('favorited worlds') with a qualifier ('by query filters'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vrchat_list_favorites' by specifying 'worlds' rather than general favorites, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'vrchat_search_worlds' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'vrchat_list_favorites' (which might list all favorites) or 'vrchat_search_worlds' (which might search worlds more broadly). It mentions 'query filters' but doesn't specify typical use cases or prerequisites for filtering favorited worlds.

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