favorites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating call, but pagination behavior (page/count interaction), result limits, ordering, and auth requirements are all unstated for a tool with three parameters.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and action, with the scoping rule appended. No wasted words, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate for the undocumented page/count parameters and lack of any read-only or auth statement. As written, an agent must guess at pagination semantics.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies one of three parameters (user_id defaults to the authenticated user). The meaning of 'page' and 'count' — units, defaults, interaction — is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read ... favorited statuses'), which is clear on its own. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'favorite' (the write action) but never says so explicitly, leaving a possible ambiguity between reading favorites and favoriting a status.

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 parenthetical 'empty = the authenticated user' gives a useful rule for when to omit user_id, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus home_timeline, user_timeline, or mentions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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