github_users_check_following_for_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but omits important details: whether it returns a boolean/status code, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for non-existent users. The minimal description does not add value beyond the obvious.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It is front-loaded but could be more structured to include usage context or return behavior. Every sentence should earn its place; here, extra detail is missing, not excessive.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It fails to specify the response format (e.g., boolean or HTTP status) and does not clarify the meaning of 'follows'. The completeness is insufficient for confident use without prior API knowledge.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions that merely repeat the parameter names. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning or constraints 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 checks if one user follows another, using the verb 'Check' and specifying the resource ('a user follows another user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_users_check_person_is_followed_by_authenticated which is limited to the authenticated user, though this distinction is not explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as github_users_check_person_is_followed_by_authenticated or the follow/unfollow tools. No context on when to prefer this over the authenticated version or any exclusions.

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