get_user_tweets

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, sorting order, inclusion of retweets, or pagination behavior beyond noting cursor is optional. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 sentence, efficiently listing purpose and parameters. It is concise with no wasted words. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading behavioral context before parameter details.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites, authorization context, and pagination details beyond cursor. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), the description still lacks completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so description must add meaning. It lists parameters with defaults (e.g., tweet_type default 'Tweets'), but does not explain possible values for tweet_type or cursor format. It largely repeats schema information without adding semantic context, making it minimally helpful.

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 'Get tweets from a specific user's timeline', specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'user's timeline'. Among siblings like 'get_user_mentions' and 'get_timeline', it distinguishes by targeting a specific user's tweets. Could be clearer by contrasting with 'get_timeline' but overall specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites. Sibling tools include many user-tweet related functions, but the description provides no conditions or comparisons.

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