follow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication and record creation, but fails to describe potential side effects (e.g., notification to followed user, rate limits, error handling) or return behavior.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 follow tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core action and authentication requirement. It lacks context on response format, prerequisites, or integration with the AT Protocol ecosystem, but is minimally adequate.

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 only parameter 'actor' has no description beyond the schema (type string, minLength 1). The description does not clarify whether it expects a handle or DID, nor provide examples. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Follow a user on AT Protocol' with a specific verb and resource. It adds context by mentioning the platform and authentication requirement, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like batch_follow or unfollow_user.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_follow. It implies a single-user follow, but lacks direct comparison or conditions (e.g., when actor is a handle or DID).

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