like_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the parameter, with no mention of side effects (e.g., whether an already-liked tweet errors or is idempotent), required permissions, rate limits, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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, with only two sentences separating the main purpose and the parameter description. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, the 'Args' section largely duplicates the schema, which is slightly redundant, but overall the structure is clean and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. The action is self-explanatory and the output schema likely documents return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to know when to use it and what side effects to expect. This earns a 'minimum viable' score.

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 description repeats the parameter name and type ('tweet_id: The tweet ID.') without adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not clarify the ID format (integer vs string), any constraints, or how to obtain the ID. The minimal elaboration is largely redundant with the schema's property name and type.

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 the action: 'Like a tweet by ID.' It identifies the verb (like) and resource (tweet), and the listener is given the required input. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'unfavorite_tweet', the verb 'like' is unique and unambiguous. The purpose is specific and easily understood.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisite steps (e.g., verifying the tweet exists), no exclusions, and no comparison to similar actions like 'unfavorite_tweet' or 'retweet'. The description simply states the action without any contextual or alternative usage information.

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