get_user_following

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the read operation and the maximum limit value; it fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 highly concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args section. Every element earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) 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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input parameters and defaults/max limits. It does not address error conditions or pagination beyond the limit, but given the simplicity and available output schema, the coverage is adequate.

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 provides almost no descriptions beyond types and a default, so the description adds valuable meaning. It gives a concrete example for username ('NTSRadio') and specifies the maximum limit of 100, which is not present in the schema. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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' and identifies the resource as 'users that a Mixcloud user is following,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool get_user_followers which would return the user's followers. The scope is unambiguous and differentiates the tool from other get_user_* siblings.

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 tool's name and description make it clear that this is for fetching the 'following' list, which is opposite to get_user_followers. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with siblings or state when to prefer this over alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicitly stated.

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