get_user_tweets

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

With no annotations, the description must shoulder the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Paginated via cursor') and parameter behavior ('tweet_type selects the tab'), which are useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on invalid user_id, leaving significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes key behavioral hints without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes value, and the format is highly scannable.

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 description is minimal for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It lacks any mention of return format, error cases, or parameter interactions. While it covers the core purpose, it fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to use it reliably in varied contexts.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains tweet_type (selects tab) and cursor (pagination), but leaves 'count' entirely unaddressed and 'user_id' only implicitly obvious. With four parameters, this partial coverage is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct calls, especially regarding count's role relative to cursor.

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 ('Get a user's tweets') and resource ('user's tweets'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user or get_user_followers. The mention of tweet_type selecting the tab adds specificity about the scope (tweets, replies, media, likes), which clarifies the tool's functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_tweets, which could also return tweets, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 when to use this tool (to retrieve a user's tweets by profile tab), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like search_tweets. The context is clear enough for selection, but lacks the direct comparative language that would elevate it to a 4 or 5.

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