nexus_get_ignored_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the API version, the rate-limit pool consumed, and the exact return shape. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 purpose, then adds a concise rate-limit note, and finally a compact return-format listing. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, API version, rate-limit behavior, and returned fields. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke this correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. The return shape note is extra useful context, though not parameter-related.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get the current user's ignored (muted) users via v2 GraphQL.' This immediately identifies both the action and the target data, and differentiates it from mutation siblings like nexus_ignore_user and nexus_unignore_user.

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 clearly contextualizes when to use the tool: to retrieve the current user's ignored/muted users. It also adds a meaningful usage note about consuming the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST rate-limit quota, which helps an agent select it for rate-limit-aware workflows. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough for this zero-parameter read tool.

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