get_user_relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral nuance beyond them: only the account's own muting/blocking list is exposed, and the default target is the authenticated account. It says nothing about paging behavior or result ordering, so it adds moderate context but not rich disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence covering all four relation modes plus the default-target caveat. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description plus the well-documented schema are enough for an agent to call this correctly: the mode is enumerated, the target/default is explained, and paging inputs are described in the schema. Remaining gaps (return shape, ordering) are minor for a read-only list operation whose safety profile is already in annotations.

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 80%, so the schema already documents user, account, max_results, and pagination_token in detail. The description only contributes the default-user semantics and the ownership constraint on muting/blocking; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('followers or following... muting/blocking list'), and the four enumerated relation types map exactly onto the 'type' enum, so the agent knows what the tool returns. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with (e.g., get_users or user_action), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

It states one useful usage fact: the target defaults to the account itself when no user is given, and that muting/blocking is the account's own list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to user_action, get_users, or list_accounts, so usage is only implied.

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