twitter_followers_you_know

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by specifying the authentication requirement and the return shape ('profile data per overlap account plus a cursor'). This context helps the agent understand the operational constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first explains the core operation, the second adds requirements and output. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant or unnecessary 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, required authentication, and output (profile data + cursor). While there is no output schema, the description gives a sufficient overview. It could be more complete by clarifying the response structure or edge cases, but for a read-only tool with extensive parameter documentation, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the parameter descriptions are already detailed (e.g., ct0, count, cursor). The tool description adds only the high-level requirement of an authenticated session, which is implicitly covered by the auth parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly augment the parameter semantics.

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 defines the tool's purpose: listing 'Followers you know' for a target user, which is the overlapping followers between the target and the authenticated account. It uses specific verbs ('List') and resource ('target user id'), and the phrase 'mutual-connection overlap' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'twitter_user_followers' (all followers) or 'twitter_check_follow_relationship' (single check).

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 states 'Requires an authenticated session behind your key,' which is a prerequisite for use. The concept of mutual-connection overlap implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to find known followers) versus other follower tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, which would elevate it to a 5.

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