get_user_followers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints like the default (20) and maximum (100) for the limit parameter, which go beyond the schema. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, ordering, or error responses, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clean args list. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is exemplary for a tool with only two parameters.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists (confirmed by context signals) to document return values. The description covers the essential purpose and all parameter semantics. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or boundaries, but given the existence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Both parameters are explained: username is defined as 'the Mixcloud username' with an example, and limit is described as 'Number of results to return' with default and max bounds. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema and effectively documents both parameters.

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's function: 'Get a list of followers for a Mixcloud user.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_following, which retrieves accounts the user follows. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides clear context by specifying the exact resource (followers of a user) and the required username. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling get_user_following exists and the distinction is implied by the tool name and description. This is a clear usage context without explicit alternative guidance.

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