get_bookmarks

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states paginated retrieval, implying read-only, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, error cases, or what happens with no bookmarks. Lacks safety and error 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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose then two arg descriptions. No extraneous text. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence provides value.

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 simple paginated get tool with output schema present, basics are covered. However, lacks authentication context and differentiation among many 'get_' siblings. Could be more complete for an agent new to the domain.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining count (default 20, max 100) and cursor (pagination from next_cursor). Adds meaning beyond schema titles and defaults, though could include format/type details.

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 bookmarked tweets' with the verb 'get' and resource 'bookmarked tweets'. It mentions pagination, distinguishing it from creation/deletion siblings like bookmark_tweet and delete_bookmark. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like get_timeline or get_tweet, though the resource specificity helps.

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?

Minimal guidance: only describes pagination and default/max for count. Does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, authentication requirements, or prerequisites. No exclusions or why one might choose this over similar get tools.

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