ariel_get_follows

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response ordering, or rate-limit implications. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the operation in the most direct way possible.

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?

The description conveys the core output concept but no output schema exists to clarify the response shape. It does not describe how limit and cursor affect the results or what fields each returned user contains. Adequate for a simple getter, but missing enough detail to fully guide an agent.

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 actor, limit, and cursor. The description implicitly ties 'a user' to the actor parameter but adds nothing beyond what the schema provides.

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 is a specific verb+resource statement: 'Get users that a user follows.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the sibling tool ariel_get_followers, which would return the reverse relationship.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention the closely related ariel_get_followers or any criteria for selecting between them. The user must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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