x-ai-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements ('Requires OAuth token'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output contains beyond 'bookmarked tweets', leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers authentication and parameter details but lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error scenarios, which would enhance completeness.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'count' by specifying its purpose ('Number of bookmarks'), range ('1-100'), and default value ('default 20'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. This provides clear semantics beyond what the basic schema offers.

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 purpose with 'Get your bookmarked tweets', specifying the verb (get) and resource (bookmarked tweets). It distinguishes from siblings like x_liked_tweets or x_user_tweets by focusing on bookmarks, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like x_home_timeline.

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 some usage context with 'Requires OAuth token', indicating authentication prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like x_liked_tweets or x_user_tweets, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.

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