get-followers

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not mention pagination behavior (e.g., limit cap of 500), return format, sorting, rate limits, or authentication needs. This lack of context leaves important operational details undisclosed.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though minimal in content.

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 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose but omits useful contextual details like pagination handling (limit caps at 500), the structure of returned user objects, and guidance on when to use this tool over get-follows. It is a minimum viable descriptor with clear gaps.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (user and limit) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema offers, 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'list of users that follow a person,' which unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-follows (which would list who a person follows). This is a clear, specific statement of purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get-follows is the counterpart for 'following' lists, nor any exclusions or preferred contexts. The description states only the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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