is_following_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a boolean read-style check and references the authenticated user, but it does not specify behavior for unauthenticated calls, invalid usernames, or errors.

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?

A single concise sentence that defines the exact return condition. No filler, no unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter boolean check with no output schema, the description states the subject, the target, and the returned result. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the 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?

The schema only documents username as a string with no description, so the description's use of `username` does not add much meaning. Still, the single parameter is self-explanatory and the description clarifies its role as the follow target, which provides modest value.

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 names a precise predicate: whether the authenticated user follows the given username. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling is_following_tag (tag follows) and follow_user (writes a follow relationship).

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 implies the check is for a user follow relationship and is read-only, which hints at when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as is_following_tag or follow_user.

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