get_user_following

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 discloses that the tool returns a FollowList object with details like pagination (via the 'page' parameter and 'total_count'), which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks information on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args, returns, and usage. Every sentence earns its place, but the repetition of parameter details in 'Args:' could be slightly trimmed since they're covered in the schema, keeping it efficient but not perfectly concise.

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 complexity (simple read operation with pagination), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, returns, and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 in the 'Args:' section but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 that a user follows') with the resource ('users'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_followers (which fetches followers) and get_user_summary (which provides a summary). 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 'Use to:' section provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., 'Discover influential users in the community'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with get_user_followers or other user-related tools, though the purpose is distinct enough to imply usage.

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