get_user_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: pagination via cursor. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, ordering, error cases, or return format. The pagination note adds some value beyond the schema, making it minimally transparent but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds the key pagination detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and pagination. However, it omits details about the 'count' parameter and the return format, which would be helpful given there is no output schema to clarify results. Still, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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. It explains 'user_id' implicitly ('given user id') and explicitly mentions 'cursor' for pagination. However, it does not explain the 'count' parameter at all, leaving a gap. This partial coverage earns a mid-range 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource: 'accounts the given user id follows'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_followers, which lists followers instead. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 usage context: to retrieve accounts a user follows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_user_followers) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No explicit guidance is given, so it relies on the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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