bsky_get_follows

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 states the tool retrieves data ('取得します'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'cursor' parameter), or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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: '指定ユーザーのフォロー一覧を取得します.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but the description lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. It meets a baseline for a read operation but doesn't fully address gaps from missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain parameters like 'handle' (the user to query), 'limit' (number of results), 'cursor' (for pagination), or 'acting_handle' (context for authentication). With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving 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ー一覧を取得します' (Get the follow list of a specified user). It uses a specific verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('フォロー一覧' - follow list), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'bsky_get_followers', which retrieves followers rather than follows, though the distinction is implied by the tool names.

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 sibling tools like 'bsky_get_followers' (for followers) or 'bsky_get_profile' (for user details), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or alternatives.

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