get_followers

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds value by stating the response container ('a `users` array of profile objects') and narrowing the scope to 'current user's' followers, which clarifies auth context. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and return type, the second provides the key sibling distinction. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with one optional, schema-covered parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, return shape, and the most important alternative. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 only parameter, 'fields', is fully documented in the input schema with a clear explanation of dot-path field names and available options. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat parameter details; 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 uses the specific verb 'Get', identifies the resource as 'the current user's followers on Partiful', and specifies the return shape as 'a `users` array of profile objects'. It explicitly distinguishes this from get_following, so there is no ambiguity about which direction the follow relationship points.

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 names the closely related alternative get_following and explains the difference: 'who the current user follows, not who follows them'. This gives clear guidance on when to choose one over the other. It also scopes the tool to 'current user', implying use when you need the authenticated user's follower list.

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