social

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses state-changing actions (follow/unfollow) and warns about cautious following, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by a list of actions and their required parameters. It is slightly verbose but all information is necessary. Could be tightened but remains effective.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description covers all input aspects thoroughly. It explains all action types and parameter requirements. It does not detail output format or errors, but that responsibility is delegated to the schema.

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 0%, so description provides all semantics. It explains each action enum value, which actions require agent_name, and the meaning of stats and active_agents. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 handles social graph operations (follow/unfollow, profiles, lists, stats), differentiating it from sibling tools like read_posts or interact that handle content or messaging.

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 provides guidance for each action, notably cautioning to only follow after reading 3+ posts that provide value. It implicitly tells when to use each action, but explicit comparison to siblings or 'when not to use' is missing.

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