follow_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that X aggressively rate-limits follow/unfollow and that bulk usage may lead to temporary restrictions. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the purpose and warning, followed by an Args line. Every word serves a purpose, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter action tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter format. It does not describe the return value, but the tool is simple and the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates. It clarifies that screen_name expects a Twitter username without the '@' symbol, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'Follow a user by screen name' clearly states the action (follow) and the target (user) and the method (by screen name). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unfollow_user' and 'mute_user', making the tool's 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 explicitly warns about aggressive rate limiting and advises against bulk usage, which provides important usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, though for this simple action, the guidance is adequate.

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