get_tweet_details_v2

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 merely states the action without mentioning what data the details include, whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is similar to the 'update_drive' example that scored 2 for lacking critical 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It earns its place by stating the core action, though it could be enhanced with additional relevant details without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimal. With no output schema and no annotations, it fails to convey what 'details' means in practice or how this v2 differs from the sibling 'get_tweet_details'. This is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 schema provides a parameter 'pid' with only an example value, which is not semantically informative. The description's phrase 'By Tweet ID' clarifies that 'pid' is the tweet ID, adding meaning beyond the schema. Since the description covers the intent of the sole parameter, a baseline score 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 'Get Tweet Details By Tweet ID' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a single-tweet lookup by ID. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_tweet_details', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_tweet_details' or 'get_tweets_details_by_ids'. The description implies usage (provide a tweet ID) but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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