get_followers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists followers and adds useful return-field information ('id, username, name, counts'), implicitly indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or how the 'count' parameter affects results, which are relevant for a list operation.

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, compact sentence that states the action, resource, parameter prerequisite, and return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 relatively simple read-only list tool, the description provides core information: purpose, required parameter type, and return fields. However, it omits any explanation of the 'count' parameter (its meaning, default, or effect on results) and does not mention pagination or response shape. Since there is no output schema, these gaps leave some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool for the first time.

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 description coverage is only 50% (user_id is described, count is not). The description adds no new information about the 'count' parameter, and it only restates that user_id is numeric, which the schema already says. It fails to clarify how 'count' operates (e.g., page size or total limit), leaving the agent to rely on schema defaults and constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('a user's followers') and explicitly mentions the numeric user id requirement. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_following and get_user, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need to retrieve a user's followers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given sibling tools like get_following and get_user, the context is sufficient for correct selection. No misleading guidance exists.

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