follow

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 only discloses a rate limit, omitting other behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., creating a follow relationship), reversibility via 'unfollow', permission requirements, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise (two sentences + arg list) and front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness, missing important details. It is not wasteful, but borderline under-specified.

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 simplicity (one param) but absence of output schema and annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not specify what happens on success or failure, what the output is, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'unfollow'. Essential context for an action tool is missing.

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 description repeats the parameter name 'agent_id' from the input schema but adds no semantic value—no explanation of what an agent ID is, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, existence). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter completely opaque.

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 'Follow an agent' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unfollow' (reverse action) and 'list_following' (read action), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 only mentions a rate limit ('30 follows per hour') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., agent existence), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage context 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.