Get Threads Followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context by stating the threads_basic scope requirement and that only users who have allowed their followers list to be visible are returned. It also discloses the return structure (User IDs, usernames, profile picture URLs), adding insights beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise but includes necessary details. The limit bounds are repeated from the schema, but this is minor redundancy. Overall, it avoids bloat and is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the main return values and constraints, but lacks explicit clarity on user scope (authenticated vs. specified user ID). It also omits guidance on the response_format parameter and does not discuss error states or rate limits. For a read tool with moderate complexity, it is functional but not fully complete.

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 meaning to the 'after' parameter as a pagination cursor, which the schema does not describe. It also confirms the limit bounds, though that is redundant with the schema. However, it does not mention the response_format parameter, which is documented only in the schema. Given schema coverage is only 25%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 lists followers of a Threads user, differentiating it from threads_get_following which handles the following list. However, the phrase 'authenticated Threads user' conflicts slightly with the existence of a threads_user_id parameter, leaving ambiguity about whether the tool queries the authenticated user's followers or any specified user's followers.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention threads_get_following or contrast with other Threads tools. The note about scope and visibility is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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