get_tweet_by_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation with no side effects, but it does not mention authentication requirements, behavior for nonexistent or private tweets, rate limits, or response shape. This is a significant gap for a tool that may require context the schema cannot provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it borders on restating the tool name rather than adding substantial new information.

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?

For a one-parameter, single-purpose read tool, the description is minimally adequate for knowing what to call and with what argument. However, it omits useful contextual details such as authentication expectations, error cases, and when to prefer a sibling tool like search_tweets. Given the simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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 coverage of the single parameter with a clear description ('Twitter tweet ID'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond restating 'by its ID', 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 clearly identifies the operation (get), the resource (tweet), and the selection mechanism (by ID). It is specific enough to be distinguished from search or user-based tweet-listing siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'by its ID' implies the tool should be used when the caller already knows the tweet ID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling tools as alternatives. Usage context is clear but underdeveloped.

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