get-follows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention pagination, the default/maximum limit of 500, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned user objects. While it is a read-only operation, the description lacks depth expected for a complete behavioral picture.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary words or repetition, and every word contributes to clarity. This is an example of efficient, front-loaded writing.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It lacks any mention of return value details (e.g., what fields are included in each user object), how pagination works, or the distinction from 'get-followers'. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of behavioral context and sibling differentiation leaves 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 full descriptions for both parameters: 'user' (handle or DID) and 'limit' (1-500 with default 500). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is comprehensive.

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 tool's function: 'Get a list of users that a person follows.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of users'), and the phrase 'that a person follows' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-followers' (which would return users who follow a person). This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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, and notably fails to differentiate it from 'get-followers'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the word 'follows' in the description, which a user might infer as directionality, but there is no explicit guidance.

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