get_tweet_details

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 states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., metadata, engagement stats). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information about a specific tweet') earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should define return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks context. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication, which are important for API tools. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only documents 'tweet_id' as a required string. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't explain what a tweet_id is or its format. With one parameter and no schema details, a baseline of 3 is applied, but it's minimal.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('about a specific tweet'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_timeline or get_user_profile that fetch different resources. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes or differentiate from get_highlights_tweets, which might also provide tweet details.

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 like get_timeline (for multiple tweets) or search_twitter (for finding tweets). It implies usage for a single tweet but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, such as whether it works for deleted tweets or requires authentication.

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