get_user_tweets

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. However, it only restates the core function and does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether retweets and replies are included. This is a significant gap for a read tool with no structured metadata.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a directly relevant usage hint. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain the return value, but it does not. It also fails to mention how count affects results or any constraints like maximum tweets returned. The tool is straightforward, but the description leaves important gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds meaning to user_id by explaining that a numeric ID is expected and that get_user can resolve a username, which goes beyond the schema's type note. However, it says nothing about the count parameter, which lacks a schema description, leaving half the parameters without semantic elucidation.

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 'Get recent tweets from a user,' specifying the action (get), resource (tweets), and scope (from a specific user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tweet (single tweet), search_tweets (keyword-based), and home_timeline (own feed).

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 explicit guidance on how to supply the user_id: either a numeric ID directly, or first using get_user to resolve a @username. It gives clear context for the main input scenario, though it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_tweets or get_likes.

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