list_user_followees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list'), pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

For a relatively simple read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (pagination behavior beyond defaults, authentication needs, error handling) that would help an agent use it effectively. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate somewhat.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (user_id, page, per_page). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's implied by the tool name (that 'user_id' identifies the user whose followees are listed). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users that the specified user is following'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_user_followers' (which lists users following the specified user) or 'list_user_following_tags' (which lists tags the user follows), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 like 'list_user_followers' or 'check_user_following'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.

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