get_likes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation without mentioning pagination via the count parameter, potential empty results, or any response format. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the effect of the count parameter (e.g., pagination limits), nor the return structure. For an AI agent, the description alone is insufficient to invoke the tool confidently beyond the most basic call.

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 50% because only user_id has a description in the schema. The tool description repeats 'numeric user id' without adding new meaning, and it offers no explanation of the count parameter (default, max, min are in schema but no semantic purpose). The description does not compensate for the undocumented count parameter.

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 retrieves tweets liked by a user, with the specific qualifier 'by their numeric user id.' This verb+resource+scope construction distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_tweets (which gets authored tweets) and like_tweet (which performs a like). The purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, or reference sibling tools like get_user_tweets or search_tweets for alternative ways to retrieve likes. No 'use this when' context is provided.

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