getFollowingListByUserId

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '获取' (get) indicates a read-only operation, and the platform context is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, or error conditions, though the schema's offset/limit parameters partially cover pagination. For a simple read, this is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and to the point, though it could have added a bit more detail (e.g., output type) without becoming verbose. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 names the platform (神岛) and specifies that the tool returns a following list, giving the agent enough context to understand the operation. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately implies the return value. Inputs are fully described in the schema. Minor gaps like the structure of the list are not critical for a simple retrieval.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, offset, userId). The description only repeats that the tool uses the user ID and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: it retrieves the following list (关注列表) for a given user ID on the 神岛 platform using the verb 获取. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getFollowerListByUserId, which would retrieve followers rather than followings.

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: when you have a user ID and need their following list. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools makes the purpose fairly clear. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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