get_highlights_tweets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it retrieves data, implying a read operation, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination (cursor usage), or what 'highlighted' means. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits parameter details and usage guidance, making it too terse to be fully helpful.

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 has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain pagination, the meaning of 'highlighted,' output details (despite an output schema), or how to differentiate from similar tools.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (count, cursor, user_id). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 tool retrieves highlighted tweets from a user's timeline, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_timeline or get_user_tweets, which also retrieve tweets.

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. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess.

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