List followers

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results come newest-first and pagination is handled automatically past Bluesky's 100-ceiling. This helps an agent understand the actual retrieval behavior without opening a schema.

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 compact: two sentences deliver the core resource, ordering, and automatic pagination. It avoids restating schema fields or adding filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 operation with four parameters and no output schema, this is mostly complete. It identifies the returned objects, ordering, and pagination behavior, while annotations cover the safety profile. A bit more detail on response shape or connected-account behavior would be a minor enhancement, but it is not essential.

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 description provides little parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already covers. 'Given account' maps to actor, and the pagination note relates loosely to limit/cursor, but the semantics of cursor, limit, and the account parameter remain primarily schema-defined. Since schema description coverage is 75%, 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 title 'List followers' names a specific verb and resource, and the description 'Accounts that follow a given account' precisely scopes the result set. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_follows, which would list accounts a given account follows. Adding 'newest first' further clarifies the ordering.

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 intended use is implied by the title and phrasing, and the pagination note suggests it is useful when all followers are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative like get_follows is named, leaving selection to inference.

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