get_retweeters

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions pagination and cursor usage, but does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the response (e.g., full user objects or just IDs).

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, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a short args list. Every line is necessary and informative.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the paginated retrieval behavior. However, it could mention prerequisites like tweet existence or permission requirements.

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 adds crucial meaning for all three parameters: clarifying tweet_id, defining count's maximum, and explaining cursor's usage with previous response's next_cursor.

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 users who retweeted a tweet (paginated)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from similar siblings like 'get_favoriters' by focusing on retweets.

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 explains the tool's function but does not explicitly advise when to use it over alternatives like 'get_favoriters' or other retrieval tools. Usage is implied by the name and context.

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