twitter_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it fetches one post by ID and shows return fields. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, whether deleted tweets return an error, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 very concise (two sentences) and includes the return format in a structured way. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but overall efficient.

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 tool is a simple lookup with no output schema, the description minimally covers the return structure but omits parameter explanations and behavioral context. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not explain the parameter meanings (id, expansions, etc.) or their formats. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional clarity beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves a single tweet by its ID ('One post by id') and shows the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like twitter_user_tweets or twitter_search_recent, leaving possible ambiguity for an agent.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., twitter_tweets for multiple tweets), nor any prerequisites or limitations. The agent receives no context for appropriate invocation.

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