github_users_list_following_for_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the function without revealing whether authentication is required, that results are paginated, or what the response format is. For a tool with zero annotations, more detail is needed (e.g., 'Returns a list of user objects; pagination is supported via per_page and page parameters').

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity of the tool (a list endpoint with pagination), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention that the response is paginated or what the response objects look like. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the return value to fully inform the agent.

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%, and the input schema already describes all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'List the people a user follows' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (people a user follows). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_users_list_followers_for_user' (list followers) and 'github_users_check_following_for_user' (check if following).

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 implies usage for retrieving the list of users followed by a particular user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for checking a specific follow relationship, use github_users_check_following_for_user). No exclusion criteria or context for choosing this tool among many user-related tools.

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