Agent Twitter Client MCP

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 but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, what the return format is, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

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 purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 for a tool that likely returns a list of users. It doesn't explain the return structure, pagination behavior, or any constraints like rate limits. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for both parameters (userId and count with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the description doesn't 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 action ('Get') and resource ('users a user is following'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_followers' by focusing on following relationships rather than followers. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope (e.g., whether it returns all following or a subset), which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_following' over 'get_followers' or 'get_user_profile', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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