x-ai-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching 'full details' but does not specify what those details include, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is efficient for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or API constraints, which are important for a read operation with no annotations.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'tweet_id' and its purpose ('The tweet ID to fetch'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, making the parameter's role clear.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('a specific tweet by ID with full details'), distinguishing it from siblings like x_search_tweets (which searches) or x_user_tweets (which lists tweets by user). It precisely defines the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 like x_search_tweets or x_user_tweets, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid tweet ID. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context implicit.

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