get_favoriters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paginated and explains the cursor mechanism, which is essential behavioral context. It clearly implies a read-only operation by using 'get', so no destructive behavior needs warning.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The args section is well-structured and each line provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 read-only paginated endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and pagination behavior. It could include error handling or rate-limit notes, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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%, but the description compensates well. It explains count's default and maximum, and describes cursor as a pagination token from a previous response's next_cursor. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get users who liked a tweet' clearly defines the action and target. It also mentions pagination, which adds scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_retweeters or get_user_followers by the object of the action.

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 usage context is clear: use when you need the list of users who liked a specific tweet. There is no explicit alternative or exclusion, but the purpose is unambiguous and the tool's scope is evident from the description.

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