x-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it requires the tweet to be authored by the authenticated user for non-public metrics, which is crucial for permission/access context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and a key constraint, but lacks details on return values (e.g., metric types, units) or other behavioral aspects like pagination or errors, which are important for a metrics tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the tweet_id parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), but it implies the parameter is used to identify the post for metrics retrieval.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'engagement metrics for a specific post', with explicit examples (impressions, likes, retweets, replies, quotes, bookmarks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_tweet (general tweet data) or search_tweets (multiple tweets) by focusing on metrics for a single post.

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 clear context on when to use it: for engagement metrics of a specific post. It implies usage for the authenticated user's tweets for non-public metrics, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., get_tweet for basic data).

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