get_user_followers_you_know

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation is 'simulated', hinting at non-production behavior, but fails to detail critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination (implied by 'cursor' parameter), or what 'common followers' entails operationally. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by elaborating on key details. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for the agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the parameters (user_id, count, cursor), such as what 'user_id' refers to, how 'count' affects results, or how 'cursor' is used for pagination. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 the tool 'retrieves a list of common followers (simulated)', which provides a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('common followers'), but it's vague about what 'common followers' means (e.g., followers shared with another user?). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_followers', leaving ambiguity about their distinct purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_user_followers' or 'get_user_following'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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