get_user_last_tweets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details. It discloses that cursor is for pagination and that userId is more stable/faster, but omits critical traits such as rate limits, result ordering, tweet count limits, error handling, or behavior when both userId and userName are provided. This is a significant gap.

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 and well-structured with a clear purpose statement, Args list, and Returns section. Each line adds value, though the formatting could be slightly improved with bullets for readability. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 description covers the essential parameters and return type, but lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when both userId and userName are given, which takes precedence) and does not mention output details like number of tweets or sorting. No output schema exists, so the description should provide more context on the returned dictionary structure, which it does not.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: userId (recommended, stable, fast), userName (screen name), and cursor (for pagination, empty on first page). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaningful usage guidance.

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 retrieves a user's latest tweets, using the verb '获取' (get) and specifying the resource '用户最新的推文' (user's latest tweets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getUserInfo or getFollowers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with getTweetsByIds which fetches specific tweets.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions parameter preferences but does not explain scenarios like 'use when you need recent tweets' or 'use instead of advanced_search for timeline data'. The only implied usage is from the tool's name, which is insufficient.

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