get_followers

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 only states the return type (list[dict]) but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 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 extremely concise (two lines) without any wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements such as a clear separation of purpose and usage, and the return type annotation could be better integrated. For a simple tool, this conciseness is acceptable.

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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides the return format and basic purpose. It does not elaborate on pagination behavior or parameter defaults, but these are covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for a straightforward list retrieval 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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the parameters implicitly. The return type note provides extra context but does not relate to parameter input semantics.

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 a Weibo user's following list, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_fans' (fans) and 'get_feeds' (content feeds). The verb '获取' (get) and resource '关注列表' (following list) make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'get_fans' or 'search_users'. The description implies it is for retrieving followings, but lacks context on prerequisites, pagination strategy, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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