get_user_following

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully describes behavioral traits: rate limiting, pagination, and parameter exclusivity. It does not detail error behavior or output structure, but output schema exists to cover that.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a critical behavioral note, a usage constraint, and then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, pagination, rate limits) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers all essential context: parameter semantics, usage constraints, and rate limiting advice. No gaps remain for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaning to all four parameters: screen_name (Twitter username without @), user_id (numeric), count (default 20, max 100), cursor (from previous response's next_cursor). This goes well beyond the schema's type and default info.

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 it retrieves accounts that a user follows, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like get_user_followers which retrieves followers. The verb 'Get' and resource 'accounts that a user follows' leave no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on rate limiting, pagination via cursor, and the requirement to provide exactly one of screen_name or user_id. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., get_user_followers) for when to use one over the other.

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