get_user_tweets

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral details such as authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior with cursor, or rate limits. The only added context is the note that the user parameter takes a rest_id, which is already partially indicated by the parameter name and schema.

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 very brief, which is good, but it appears truncated (ending with 'from "'), resulting in an incomplete thought. It is not well-structured and the double space and unclear quotation marks detract from readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameters work. It fails to mention return value structure, pagination, or any prerequisites beyond the vague rest_id hint. For a 3-parameter tool with no other documentation, this is insufficient.

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 only example values, not true semantic descriptions, despite high coverage. The description adds a small clarification that the user parameter expects a 'rest_id', but does not explain count or cursor parameters (e.g., that cursor is used for pagination). Given the high coverage metric but shallow schema descriptions, the description offers minimal supplementary meaning.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and resource 'User Tweets' with a method 'By ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other user resources or tweet details. However, the phrasing is slightly ambiguous about whether the ID refers to the user or the tweet, though the subsequent hint about 'user(rest_id)' clarifies it refers to the user.

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 like get_user_replies or get_tweet_details. The description only gives a truncated hint about obtaining the user rest_id, without 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.