Get My Bookmarks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns post text, engagement metrics, and timestamps, and it notes the requirement of an authenticated user. This provides behavioral insight beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences, covering the core action and the return content without any filler. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 tool with two well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, who it applies to (authenticated user), and what the response contains. Annotations cover safety hints, and the schema covers parameter details, so the description fills the remaining gap of return content.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'response_format' fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it also does not need to since the schema already covers the meaning and defaults of each parameter. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool fetches posts bookmarked by the authenticated user, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('posts bookmarked'). It distinguishes from siblings like x_get_my_timeline or x_get_user_posts by explicitly focusing on bookmarks, and the title matches the functionality.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or alternative guidance. However, the clear name and description imply that this is the tool for retrieving the authenticated user's bookmarks, distinguishing it from related like-like or timeline tools. There is no explicit exclusions or alternative references, so usage is only implied.

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