fomo_get_following_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is IDs of followed users, but does not mention pagination, ordering, whether the list is empty-able, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only list tool, this is a minimal but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the resource ('Ids of users') and scope ('current account follows'). It is concise and free of filler, though it could be slightly more explicit about the action (e.g., 'Get').

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly adequate: an agent knows what it returns and for whom. However, with no output schema and no annotations, details like response format, pagination, or whether it returns an empty list are missing. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly implies the operation is scoped to the current account, which is the only meaningful context. With 0 params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds the key semantic (current account scope).

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 a specific resource ('Ids of users') and a clear scope ('the current account follows'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like fomo_get_user or fomo_search_users, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The verb is implied ('get'), but the resource and scope are clear enough.

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 implies usage: call this when you need the follow list of the current account. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope ('current account') provides some context. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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