get_user_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. It mentions pagination and the return structure, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid username), or whether the data is real-time or cached. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, note) and front-loaded the core functionality. However, the final sentence about 'high follower count' is somewhat tangential and doesn't directly aid tool invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately, especially with an output schema implied by the 'Returns' section. However, it lacks context on authentication, errors, or performance limits, which are important for a user-facing API tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('username' and 'page') fully. The description repeats the parameter info without adding meaningful context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'username' or default pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Fetch the list of users following a specific user'), identifies the resource ('users following a specific user'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_user_following' (which fetches users being followed) and 'get_user_summary' (which provides general user info). The verb 'fetch' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 implies usage when needing follower lists for a user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_summary' (which might include follower count) or 'get_user_following'. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether the user must exist or be public.

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