vk_get_user_ebd4cdbf4043

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that authentication is required, that a request body is typically unnecessary, and that parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases. These details add valuable context beyond the mere fact of being a GET request, though it does not describe the response structure or pagination.

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 four sentences, each adding meaningful information. It front-loads the purpose and then provides operational details. It is slightly verbose in explaining parameter conventions for a zero-parameter endpoint, but overall it is well-structured and not padded.

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 simple, parameterless GET endpoint, the description covers the purpose, usage, and safety-related details such as authentication. It does not explicitly state return format, but the phrase 'Get all webhook events' implies a list. Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is little to document. The description adds context about how parameters would be handled (top-level fields, case aliases) which is useful for an agent, even though no parameters are currently defined. This goes beyond the empty schema, earning a strong score.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get available user-directed webhook events.' It further clarifies by specifying 'Get all webhook events that can be used with user-level webhook targets' and names the exact REST endpoint (GET /user/settings/webhooks/events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vk_get_webhooks by focusing on user-directed events.

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 usage context, noting that the endpoint 'does not usually require a request body' and that 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields.' It also mentions authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vk_get_webhooks), so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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