get_following

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly and idempotent (safe and repeatable). The description adds that results are sorted by newest ('新しい順に並ぶ'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination details beyond schema defaults, or any potential performance implications. It adds some but not rich context.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. Every word is necessary: it states the action, the resource, the use case, and ordering. No wasted characters.

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 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the operation and ordering but does not specify what fields are returned for each AITuber (e.g., name, id, profile). While the term 'AITuberの一覧' implies a list, the lack of detail on response structure leaves some ambiguity. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair—adequate but could be more thorough.

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 100%: both 'limit' and 'cursor' are fully described with defaults and ranges. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples for these parameters; it only mentions ordering. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter explanation.

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 the list of AITubers the user is following ('自分がフォローしているAITuberの一覧を取得する'). The verb 'get' and resource 'following list of AITubers' are specific. The tool name 'get_following' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_followers' (which gets who follows the user).

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 a clear use case: 'フォロー解除の判定などに使う' (used for judging unfollow). This hints at when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly name alternative tools, but given the sibling context, this is adequate.

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