vrchat_search_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only search operation but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond offset/n parameters), error conditions, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action.

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 moderate complexity (search with pagination), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication needs, result format, error handling, or how this tool fits within the broader VRChat API context. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional behavioral context.

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%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by specifying that the query searches 'Group Name or Group shortCode', which slightly elaborates beyond the schema's 'Query to search for, can be either Group Name or Group shortCode'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant enhancement.

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 ('Search') and target resource ('VRChat groups'), specifying searchable attributes ('by name or shortCode'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vrchat_list_favorite_groups' by focusing on search rather than listing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'vrchat_search_avatars' or 'vrchat_search_worlds' which share the search pattern.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), differentiate from similar search tools (e.g., 'vrchat_search_avatars'), or indicate scenarios where other tools like 'vrchat_join_group' might be more appropriate after finding a group.

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