github_users_check_person_is_followed_by_authenticated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the return value is (e.g., boolean), or error behavior (e.g., user not found). The name implies a check, but without explicit disclosure, the agent lacks critical behavioral 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. For a simple tool, this is appropriately sized. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., sections) that could improve scannability, but that is acceptable for a one-line description.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description should still cover return type and error conditions to be complete. It does not mention that the tool likely returns a boolean or HTTP status code. An agent cannot fully understand how to use the result without this information.

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 one required parameter 'username' with description 'username'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning (e.g., format, example). Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema description is minimal, and the tool description fails to compensate. Score is 2 due to insufficient semantic enrichment.

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 'Check if a person is followed by the authenticated user' clearly states the action (check) and the resource (person followed by authenticated user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_users_check_following_for_user by specifying 'by the authenticated user', but it essentially restates the tool name. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks additional detail like return type.

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., github_users_check_following_for_user, github_users_list_followed_by_authenticated_user). The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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