vrchat_list_invite_messages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Admin Credentials are required to view messages of other users!' This addresses authentication needs and access restrictions. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the returned list includes (e.g., format, fields). The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, and the second adds crucial context (admin requirement). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and admin requirements but lacks details on return values (since no output schema), error cases, or behavioral nuances like pagination. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for full agent understanding.

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 both parameters ('userId' and 'messageType') well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'userId' requires a valid user ID, 'messageType' has an enum). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how 'userId' relates to admin access or clarifying enum values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of all the users Invite Messages.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('Invite Messages'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vrchat_get_invite_message' (singular) by indicating it fetches multiple messages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'vrchat_list_favorites' beyond the resource type.

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 when to use this tool: 'Admin Credentials are required to view messages of other users!' This implies it's for administrative purposes and not for general user access. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'vrchat_get_invite_message' for a single message), though the context is sufficient for informed usage.

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