twitter_list_followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it notes cursor-paginated nature and clarifies that a small follower count is normal and not a truncated page. This goes beyond the annotations 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 three sentences, tightly written. It opens with the core action, then adds differentiating clarity and a usage hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, open-world tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how pagination works, and a critical distinction from a sibling tool. It could mention the expected response structure, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is adequately 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 each parameter already has a clear description (count, cursor, list_id). The tool description itself adds little beyond mentioning 'cursor-paginated' and the normality of small counts, which slightly reinforces the count/cursor semantics but does not materially enhance what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'public List's followers' by numeric id, and specifies cursor-pagination. It also explicitly distinguishes from twitter_list_members, which is a sibling tool, ensuring the agent picks the right one.

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 explicitly says to use twitter_list_members for the member roster instead, and explains the conceptual difference between followers and members. It also preempts confusion about small result counts, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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