get_user_followings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose pagination (cursor), response format, rate limits, or whether followings are returned as user objects or IDs. This is insufficient for a tool with similar siblings.

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 short but poorly structured. It contains a malformed second sentence that ends abruptly with a quote, likely due to truncation. This disrupts readability and makes it seem incomplete rather than concise.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return values and behavior, but it does not. It fails to clarify what 'followings' contains, whether pagination is used, or how it differs from get_user_following_ids. The tool is ambiguous in the context of many sibling tools.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a minor semantic hint that 'user' is the rest_id, but it does not explain 'count' or 'cursor'. The schema examples ('Example value: 2455740283') are not explanatory, but the high coverage keeps the score at baseline.

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 states 'Get User Followings By ID' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (user followings) with an input identifier. However, it does not specify whether the return includes full user objects or just IDs, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_following_ids. The truncated second sentence further reduces clarity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The incomplete phrase 'You can get the user(rest_id) query from' hints at obtaining the input but does not explain tool selection. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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