获取我的关注列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: authentication is required, and pagination uses has_more and next_page. It does not contradict any annotations.

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: it states the core action first, then the auth requirement, then the pagination behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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 simple paginated read tool with fully documented parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: it names the resource, auth requirement, and how to continue pagination. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents page and count with defaults, minimums, and maximums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the list of people followed by the current logged-in user, with pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_profile or get_current_user by specifying the resource ('关注的人') and the ownership ('当前登录用户').

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 gives important usage context: it requires a valid login session and is scoped to the current user. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_user_profile or search_users, leaving some routing to inference.

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