bluesky_followers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the data is public and sourced from a credential-free API, addressing auth needs, and mentions pagination via 'Returns a page'. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, rate limits, or the structure of the returned page, so transparency is partial.

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 short but contains a redundant opening sentence 'A Bluesky account's followers.' that repeats the information in the second sentence. The third sentence adds useful context about the public API, but the redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.

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, so the description should provide insight into the response. It mentions a 'page' of followers but does not describe the response fields (e.g., whether it returns DIDs, handles, full profiles). For a simple paginated list tool, this is adequate but not fully 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (actor, limit, cursor). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the pagination concept with 'Returns a page'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 that the tool 'Returns a page of a Bluesky account's followers', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like bluesky_follows or bluesky_profile, so 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 context that the data is 'public' and 'credential-free', implying it is safe to use without authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bluesky_follows or bluesky_profile, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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