follow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but gives no information about authentication requirements, idempotency, rate limits, reversal, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the operational implications.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks structure or front-loading of essential information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity but could benefit from additional details like return behavior.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It conveys the core purpose but omits behavioral context and return value details. Moderate completeness.

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 input schema documents the single parameter 'username' with a clear description. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, which already covers 100% of the parameter. Baseline score of 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 action (follow) and the resource (a user) with an additional context ('from their profile page'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like like_tweet or get_profile, which have different purposes. Highly specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (on a profile page) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides a clear hint about the appropriate context, earning a high score, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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