github_user_followers

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

The description mentions pagination ('Returns a page') but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements (public API assumed), error behavior for non-existent users, or what 'page' means. With no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits.

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, clear sentence with an additional clarifying sentence. No superfluous words, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 output schema, the description hints at the return format (page of accounts) but does not specify what fields are returned or pagination details. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but could be more 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (username, page, per_page). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists a GitHub user's followers and specifies it returns public accounts. The verb 'list' and resource 'followers' are precise, and it distinguishes from siblings like github_user_following (which lists who the user follows).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the name implies usage for listing followers, it does not mention alternatives or context like prerequisites (e.g., username existence) or compare with similar tools like github_user for user details.

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