get_user_replies

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action and a truncated note about the user ID source. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The incomplete sentence further reduces transparency.

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 extremely short but appears truncated, ending with an opening quote and incomplete clause. It lacks proper structure and leaves a dangling reference, which harms clarity. While brevity is positive, this is under-specification rather than intentional conciseness.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and a sibling v2 variant, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination via cursor, count semantics, or what constitutes a reply in this context. The missing differentiation from get_user_replies_v2 is a significant gap for an agent selecting the correct tool.

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 has 100% coverage with each parameter having an 'Example value' description, which meets the baseline for high coverage. The description adds a small semantic cue by referring to 'user(rest_id)', clarifying that the user parameter expects a rest_id. However, count and cursor are left unexplained beyond their example values, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of rich semantic detail.

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 opens with 'Get User Replies By ID', which clearly states the action (get) and resource (user replies) with a specific identifier (ID). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_user_replies_v2, which appears to serve the same purpose with a different version; thus it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The fragment 'You can get the user(rest_id) query from' implies a prerequisite but is incomplete and does not clarify use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_user_replies_v2 or get_user_tweets. This is effectively no usable guidance.

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