opentweet_list_tweets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. The description adds 'Returns paginated results', which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. No contradictions.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff, information is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 purpose and pagination but does not mention response structure, ordering, or how pagination works (e.g., page/limit parameters). For a list tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description. The tool description only adds 'optional filtering by status', which echoes the status parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional parameter context is provided.

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 'List your tweets' with optional filtering, specifying the verb and resource. It shows the tool's purpose for retrieving a list of tweets, which is distinct from sibling tools like opentweet_get_tweet or opentweet_list_evergreen_posts.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., opentweet_get_tweet for a single tweet), nor does it mention prerequisites or context for filtering.

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