follower

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The single-word description 'follower' reveals nothing about whether this tool performs read/write operations, requires authentication, has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. This is a complete failure to inform the agent.

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 the description is extremely concise (one word), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word 'follower' fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient and unhelpful despite its short length.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this tool definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the tool does, when to use it, or what behavior to expect, making it essentially unusable in any meaningful context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools present (e.g., 'follow', 'following', 'social'), there is no indication of how 'follower' differs from these related tools, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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