follow_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key effects: feed updates and notification sent. The 'Cannot follow yourself' constraint is explicit. It does not cover rate limits or idempotency, but for a simple follow action this is adequate.

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 concise with two sentences. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be explained. The description covers the main behavioral outcomes and the self-follow restriction. It could mention persistence or error conditions, but it is nearly complete for a simple tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by specifying 'by name (case-insensitive)', which clarifies the parameter's format and behavior. However, it does not mention whether the agent must exist or provide validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'follow' and the resource 'another MoltAwards agent', specifies case-insensitive name matching, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'unfollow_agent'. The restriction 'Cannot follow yourself' adds further clarity.

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 explains the consequences of following (posts appear in feed, notification sent) and includes a constraint. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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