get_list_subscribers

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is paginated, defines the count parameter (default 20, max 100), and explains that the cursor comes from a previous response's next_cursor. This adds practical context beyond what the schema alone offers, though it doesn't discuss auth or error behavior.

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 highly concise and well-structured. The first sentence gives the purpose, followed by a compact Args block listing each parameter with its semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 list getter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, pagination, and parameter details. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It lacks potential usage advice or auth caveats, but given the tool's simplicity and shared context with siblings, it is reasonably complete.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining each argument: list_id as 'The list ID', count with a default and max, and cursor with its origin. This adds meaningful semantics, especially for count and cursor, though list_id remains somewhat tautological.

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 subscribers of a Twitter List (paginated)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_list_members by using the term 'subscribers' rather than 'members', making its 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this should be preferred over get_list_members or other list-related tools, leaving the decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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