get_twitter_followers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and return type, but does not mention that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles pagination.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and return value.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (list of follower profiles with bios and follower counts). However, it lacks detail on pagination or the effect of max_results beyond what the schema provides. For a straightforward list tool, it is reasonably complete.

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% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that the returned list includes bios and follower counts, which is not in the schema. This provides context beyond the parameter details.

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 verb (Get) and resource (followers of a Twitter/X user), and specifies the return value (list of follower profiles with bios and follower counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_twitter_following, which gets who the user follows.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_twitter_following), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. It only implies usage by its name.

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