get_followers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('list[dict]') but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior beyond the 'page' parameter. For a read operation with no annotation support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The two sentences are efficient, though the return value explanation could be integrated more seamlessly. There is no redundant information, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but omits essential context like authentication requirements, rate limits, error cases, and how pagination works with the 'limit' and 'page' parameters. For a tool with three parameters and no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters (uid, limit, page) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Get a Weibo user's followers.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('a Weibo user's followers'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fans' or 'get_profile,' which might also retrieve user-related data, so it misses the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_fans' and 'get_profile' that might overlap in retrieving user data, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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