twitter_feedback_get

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive nature. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the possible status values (new, triaged, shipped, declined), the presence of a team response text, the semantics of updated_at (moves only when the team acts), the cost (free per call), and the 404 error condition for ids not on the account.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently packs in return fields, cost, and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (status, response text, updated_at) and what happens on error. Given the low complexity and existing annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already describes the id parameter as the server id from twitter_feedback_send action 'send', not a local draft id. The description repeats this same information without adding further syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Check) and resource (status of a feedback report this account sent earlier), and distinguishes it from sibling feedback tools by referencing the send action. An agent can immediately tell this is for retrieving a single report's status, not sending or listing.

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?

It gives clear context: use the server id returned by twitter_feedback_send action 'send' and call it to check status of a previously sent report. It also notes 'Free per call' and a 404 condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like twitter_feedback_list or state when not to use this tool.

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