get_user_followings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor usage, first page empty) and result limit (max 200 per page), and states the return type. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a read-only retrieval tool, these are less critical.

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 concise with a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence provides necessary information, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant text.

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, and the description covers the main aspects: what it returns (dictionary), pagination, and page size. It lacks error scenarios or rate limits, but these are not essential for a basic fetch tool. With no output schema, the return description adds necessary context.

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 has 0% coverage, so description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: userName as screen name, cursor as pagination token with first-page default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it fetches the user's following list, using the verb '获取' (get) and specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_user_followers by specifying '关注列表' (following list) rather than followers.

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 when to use via its purpose but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this instead of get_user_followers' or provide context for when this tool is preferred over other user-related tools.

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