Get Threads Following

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return format details (User IDs, usernames, profile pictures) and pagination semantics (limit, after). It does not mention rate limits or authentication nuances beyond 'authenticated user', but those are acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence for purpose and a structured 'Args:' list with clear parameter descriptions. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. The return statement adds essential output info without clutter.

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 list tool, the description covers the required parameter, optional pagination, and return format. There is no output schema, so the return description fills that gap. It does not mention authentication letails or rate limits, but those are less critical given the annotations and simplicity. The tool is fully callable as described.

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 only 25% (only response_format has a schema description). The description compensates by explaining threads_user_id, limit (with range and default), and after (pagination cursor). It omits response_format, but that is described in the schema. Overall, it adds meaning for most 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Lists accounts that the authenticated Threads user is following.' It clearly distinguishes from write tools like threads_publish_text, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like threads_get_followers. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., threads_get_followers or threads_get_mentions). It does not mention when not to use it or any specific context. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the description alone.

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