follow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single word 'follow' gives no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just one word, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool. Every word should earn its place, but here the single word doesn't earn its place by providing useful information.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools in what appears to be a social media/content platform context, and with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. A tool named 'follow' in this ecosystem likely has significant behavioral implications that need explanation, but the description provides none of the necessary context about what the tool does or returns.

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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation in the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters. However, it doesn't get a perfect 5 because it could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'follower' and 'following' that seem related to social connections, there's no indication whether 'follow' is for initiating follows, checking follow status, or managing follows. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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