get_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'raw TweetDetail response', which hints at the return format but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetch a single tweet with its reply thread') and includes only essential qualifiers ('by tweet id', 'raw TweetDetail response'). Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but misses key contextual facts such as authentication requirements, error handling, or what constitutes the 'reply thread'. Since the complexity is low, this is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has no description for the tweet_id parameter (0% coverage), so the description's phrase 'by tweet id' provides minimal added semantic value. It clarifies the purpose of the sole parameter but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or special cases, leaving the baseline at 3 due to the simple one-parameter schema.

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 ('Fetch a single tweet with its reply thread') and the resource identifier ('by tweet id'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from most siblings like post_tweet or delete_tweet, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_thread, though mentioning 'raw TweetDetail response' adds some scoping.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_thread, get_user_tweets, and search_tweets may serve overlapping purposes, but the description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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