bsky_get_followers

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 what the tool does (get followers) without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core functionality.

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 that there is an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), and a read operation that likely involves pagination and authentication, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial details about behavior and parameters, making it only minimally adequate.

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%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'handle', 'limit', 'cursor', or 'acting_handle' mean or how they affect the operation, leaving all 4 parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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's purpose: '指定ユーザーのフォロワー一覧を取得します' (Get a list of followers for a specified user). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and the resource 'フォロワー一覧' (list of followers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bsky_get_follows' (which likely gets who a user follows rather than who follows them), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with related tools such as 'bsky_get_follows' or 'bsky_get_profile'. This leaves the agent without context for selecting this tool appropriately among siblings.

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