get_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and the numeric user id requirement. It does not disclose pagination or count limitations, ordering, return format, or any other behavioral traits relevant to a list operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it omits important operational details like count bounds or pagination, which could be included without excessive verbosity, so it loses one point for being overly sparse.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what it returns and how to control result size. It only states the basic action and user id requirement, leaving count, pagination, and return format unexplained. This is incomplete for a tool that has a count parameter with bounds defined in 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 description coverage is only 50%, covering user_id but not count. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it completely ignores the count parameter. With half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description, parameter semantics are weak and incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('accounts a user follows'), and specifies the key input ('numeric user id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_followers, which lists the inverse relationship.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: call when you need the list of accounts a user follows. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention of alternatives such as get_followers or get_user. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative guidance.

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