get_retweeters

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('paginated') and explains the cursor parameter as coming from `next_cursor`, which is useful operational context. However, it does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior for invalid tweet IDs, though these are not critical for a simple read operation.

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: a one-line purpose statement followed by a terse bullet list of parameters. No filler or repetition. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence adds 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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. It explains pagination fully. Minor gaps (e.g., response order, error handling) are not necessary given the 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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: tweet_id is described as 'The tweet ID', count gets its default and max ('default 40, max 100'), and cursor is explained as 'Pagination cursor from a previous response's `next_cursor`'. This adds full meaning beyond types/defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get users who retweeted a tweet'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_favoriters (users who favorited) and get_tweet (tweet content). The parenthetical '(paginated)' adds operational scope.

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 immediately establishes when to use it: when you need the list of users who retweeted a specific tweet, given by tweet_id. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is unmistakable due to the distinct resource and the required parameter.

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