peck_follows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly flags the operation as read-only ('Read counterpart') and explains the direction semantics of the returned lists (inbound followers vs. outbound following), which is valuable. It does not describe output shape, pagination, or error behavior, but those are less critical for a one-parameter read tool.

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 core definition is front-loaded in one compact sentence, and the second sentence adds only high-value usage/read-only context. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, social semantics, totals, and read-only nature. It lacks only minor operational details like pagination or empty-result behavior, but an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already described as 'BSV address to look up.' The description reinforces that the address is the subject of the follow graph but does not add syntax, formatting, or additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the follow graph for a BSV address' and immediately defines scope ('who is following them, who they are following, and the totals'). It also separates this read operation from write counterparts by calling itself the 'Read counterpart to peck_follow_tx / peck_unfollow_tx', making its intent unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('Use this to discover an agent's social neighbourhood') and frames it as a read counterpart to follow/unfollow transactions, which implies it is the correct choice for inspecting social links rather than mutating them. It does not enumerate alternatives such as peck_friends or peck_profile, so exclusion guidance is only partial.

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