vrchat_list_favorites

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 but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('returns'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema hints at with 'offset'), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details (e.g., scope or differentiation from siblings), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'n' for count, 'type' for filtering). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how filters interact or typical use cases for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 'Returns a list of favorites' states the basic action but is vague about scope and context. It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('favorites'), but doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'vrchat_list_favorited_worlds' or 'vrchat_list_favorite_groups', leaving ambiguity about what exactly constitutes 'favorites' in this context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vrchat_list_favorited_worlds' for world-specific favorites or 'vrchat_get_friends_list' for friends, nor does it clarify prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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