get_retweeters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via cursor, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the response includes only user IDs or full user objects.

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 two short sentences, with the purpose stated first and the pagination detail second. Every word is purposeful, and no redundant information is included.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain the full behavior and return value. It only states that it lists accounts and is paginated, leaving gaps about what the response looks like, how count affects results, and what happens when no retweets exist. For a 3-parameter tool, this is under-specified.

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 parameter meaning. It implicitly explains 'tweet_id' as the given tweet, and 'cursor' as the pagination mechanism, but 'count' is not mentioned. This partial compensation earns a middle score.

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 'List accounts that retweeted the given tweet,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_favoriters (which lists liking accounts) by explicitly naming the retweet action.

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 tool is used to retrieve retweeters for a given tweet, but it provides no explicit context on when to prefer this over similar tools like get_favoriters or search_users. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative options, though the intended use is reasonably clear.

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