Get followers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List the accounts' without mentioning pagination (cursor), result limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. Compared to the update_drive example, this lacks even minimal behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. It earns its place without unnecessary words. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no other documentation, so it does not reach the highest tier.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the tool lacks critical context about return format, pagination behavior, and how it differs from sibling tools. The single sentence does not sufficiently equip an agent to use this tool correctly in all situations.

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 only 33% (actor only). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain 'limit' or 'cursor', and does not reinforce the actor omission behavior. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 'List the accounts that follow a given user' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (followers of a user). It is specific enough to distinguish from bluesky_get_following, which would list accounts a user follows, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bluesky_get_following. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint comes from the schema's actor parameter description ('Omit for your own account'), which is not part of the tool description.

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