twitter_article_list

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description complements by explaining that it's scoped to the authenticated account (not all articles), requires an authenticated session (ct0, auth_token), yields most recent first, and paginates via cursor. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds valuable context about session/auth requirements and the lack of a combined view. Slight deduction for not mentioning rate limits or potential errors, but generally strong.

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 compact but information-dense, covering purpose, scoping, lifecycle behavior, authentication, pagination, and return structure. It front-loads the core message of listing your own articles, then adds necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, and it stays well under 150 words for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields (count, next_cursor, article objects). It covers authentication requirements, pagination mechanics, and the lifecycle limitation. For a read-only list tool with comprehensive parameter descriptions and annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), this description is complete and self-contained. No critical information 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 each parameter has a description. The description adds context by stating the default count (20), the behavior of cursor (null/absent means no more pages), and that lifecycle must be explicitly changed to published. It also explains the auth cookie requirement and proxy_url recommendation for writes. While the schema already explains each parameter clearly, the description enriches the semantics with default values and practical usage patterns.

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 lists the authenticated user's own articles, with a specific verb ('list'), resource ('articles'), and scope ('YOUR OWN', 'AS your authenticated account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list articles for other users or manage webhooks/tweets by emphasizing the authenticated account's own articles and the lifecycle filter.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for listing one's own published or draft articles, and when not to: when needing a combined view, as X exposes no combined view. It provides clear guidance on using the 'lifecycle' parameter (published vs draft) and explicitly mentions pagination via 'cursor', which is a direct alternative to not using it. No alternatives are needed since this is a unique tool for listing own articles.

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