get-followers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the structure of the returned list. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational characteristics.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, rate limits, pagination beyond 'limit', error handling, and the structure of returned data (e.g., list of user objects). While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for reliable agent invocation without relying heavily on schema assumptions.

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 100%, with both parameters ('user' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'user' as a handle/DID or explain follower retrieval mechanics). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra semantic context is offered.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of users that follow a person'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get-follows' (which presumably gets who a user follows) and 'search-people' (which searches profiles). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the Bluesky/AT Protocol context, which could help differentiate from generic follower tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare with 'get-follows' (which likely retrieves who a user follows), or specify use cases like checking follower counts or analyzing social graphs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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