get_following

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the direction of the relationship (who follows whom) and clarifies the output is a userIds array, which helps prevent misuse beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes only essential information. It efficiently clarifies purpose, sibling distinction, and downstream usage without any fluff.

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-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, relationship to alternatives, and follow-up actions. No gaps are evident, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the description doesn't need to explain it. The description mentions the available 'userIds' field, but that is already present in the schema description. No additional parameter meaning is added.

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 states the tool returns the user IDs the current user follows, using the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'user IDs'. It explicitly distinguishes from get_followers, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from a closely related sibling tool.

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 directly names get_followers as the alternative and explains the distinction, and also suggests using get_users to resolve the IDs. This provides explicit when-to-use and next-step guidance.

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