关注列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description correctly reinforces that this is a read/list operation. It adds the default-account fallback and pagination behavior, but says nothing about result ordering, page-size ceilings, or how paging terminates beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and scope and appends the pagination note. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description is expected to convey more about what comes back, yet it only mentions pagination. For a three-parameter list tool the essentials (who, how many, which page) are covered, but the sibling-relationship distinction and return shape remain unaddressed.

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%, so ps, mid, and page are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mid semantics ('不传则使用当前登录账号') and pagination, but adds no format, ordering, or boundary detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('获取...关注列表') plus scope ('当前账号（或指定用户）') and pagination support, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_followers, which retrieves the reverse relationship, so an agent must infer '关注' vs '粉丝' from the name alone.

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?

Implied usage: retrieve followings for the logged-in account by default, or for a given user via mid, with pagination. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the near-identical sibling list_followers is never named as the alternative.

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