get_recent_tweets

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not specify whether tweets are public, the definition of 'recent', pagination behavior, or API limitations. As a result, the agent has no insight into the tool's operation beyond the name.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points, sections). It is front-loaded with the action but has minimal content beyond stating the obvious.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of tweet objects with fields). It does not address pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Given the tool's purpose, this is severely incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and types. The type of 'recent_tweets_count' is 'string' but the schema description says 'number', which is ambiguous. The description does not clarify this or provide examples.

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 action ('Fetch recent tweets') and the resource ('specified Twitter handle'), making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_twitter_users', which likely retrieves user profiles rather than tweets.

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 versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, rate limits, or authentication. The phrase 'for social media tracking' only implies a use case but offers no actionable context.

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