List followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the ordering ('newest first') and the automatic pagination past Bluesky's 100 ceiling, which directly affects how results are returned and how limit/cursor behave. This goes beyond what annotations provide, earning a solid score.

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 two concise sentences with zero filler. The core function is front-loaded ('Accounts that follow a given account'), followed by a brief, important behavioral note about pagination. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a clear schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what is returned, ordering, pagination). It does not explain the return format, but the function's output is self-evident (a list of accounts). The lack of an output schema means the description could have added a bit more detail, but the overall definition is complete enough for an agent to call 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 75%, with descriptions for actor, limit, and account, leaving cursor undocumented. The description does not explicitly explain any parameters, but it mentions automatic pagination which indirectly clarifies limit and cursor behavior. Since the schema already covers most parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value but does not compensate for the undocumented 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 states 'Accounts that follow a given account', which clearly identifies the tool as listing followers of a given actor. It also adds ordering ('newest first') and a key pagination behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_follows', leaving some potential ambiguity for an agent comparing them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_follows' or 'search_actors'. It simply describes what the tool does without any contextual cues such as 'use this when you need the list of accounts that follow X' or 'for accounts that X follows, use get_follows instead'. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and title.

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