get-follows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), pagination behavior (only mentions 'limit' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid user handles. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place by contributing directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe the return format (what user data is included), pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions, types, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'user' and the returned follows, or provide examples of valid user formats beyond what's in the schema description. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 a person follows'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-followers' by specifying the direction of the relationship (users the person follows vs. users following the person). However, it doesn't specify the exact format or scope of the returned list beyond 'users', leaving some ambiguity about what user data is included.

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 need to retrieve a user's following list, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, rate limits, or compare with similar tools like 'get-profile' (which might include some following info) or 'search-people'. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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