tiktok_profile_following_listList accounts followed by a TikTok profile by handle. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | No | Optional flag for a smaller response with fewer fields. | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor returned by a previous response. | |
| handle | Yes | TikTok handle whose following list should be listed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a list and that a cursor should be used when paginated, which is behavioral information beyond the annotations. This helps the agent handle pagination and understand the response shape.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds the return type and pagination hint. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 list tool, the description is complete enough. It states the return is a list, mentions pagination via cursor, and the parameters are fully described in the schema. No critical information (like authentication, rate limits, or output fields) is needed for correct invocation, given the read-only nature and open-world hint.
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%, and the schema already describes each parameter (handle, cursor, trim). The description only reiterates that it lists by handle and uses cursor for pagination, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 states the tool lists accounts followed by a TikTok profile, specified by handle. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (accounts followed), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool tiktok_profile_followers_list (following vs. followers). The mention of returning a list further clarifies the operation.
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 gives clear context about what the tool does, and the term 'followed' implicitly tells the agent this is for following lists (as opposed to followers). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the followers list or provide any exclusions. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.