bsky_follow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement but doesn't describe what the follow operation entails (e.g., creates a social connection, appears in feeds), potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a social action tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that states the core action and authentication requirement. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 this is a social action tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description should provide more context about the follow operation's behavior and parameter usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description only mentions '指定DID' (specified DID) which corresponds to 'subject_did', but doesn't explain the optional 'acting_handle' parameter or provide any context about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships between them.

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 ('フォローします' - follow) and target resource ('指定DID' - specified DID), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bsky_unfollow' by being the follow operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other social actions like 'bsky_block' or 'bsky_mute'.

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 minimal guidance - only mentioning authentication requirement ('要認証'). It doesn't explain when to use this versus alternatives like 'bsky_add_to_list' for list management or 'bsky_block' for blocking users, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond authentication.

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