list_following

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication behavior beyond the schema's token parameter. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context.

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. Every word earns its place for this simple operation.

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?

Adequate for a simple list tool, but with no output schema and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps around expected return shape and pagination. It is minimally sufficient but not richly complete.

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%, and the token parameter is already described with a useful format hint ('starts with tc_'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('the voices you follow'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browse_voices or followed_feed, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browse_voices or followed_feed. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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