vk_friends_get

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only states that IDs or detailed info are returned but does not mention default behavior (IDs unless fields parameter given), pagination (offset, count), sorting (order parameter), authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words.

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?

Despite many parameters (7, none required) and no output schema, the description provides no overview of pagination, sorting, or the difference between ID and detailed output. It is insufficient for complete 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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond implying that 'fields' controls whether details are returned. Baseline is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'a list of user IDs or detailed information about a user's friends.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like vk_friends_get_online or vk_friends_get_mutual by being the generic friend retrieval tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., for online friends, use vk_friends_get_online; for mutual friends, use vk_friends_get_mutual). The description does not provide any context for selection.

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