getRetweets

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 states the tool retrieves retweets but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response format. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating what the tool does.

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 complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination handling, error cases, or what the returned data looks like. For a tool that fetches social media data with multiple options, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters clearly. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the purpose of expansions or field selections. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get posts that retweet a specific post.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('posts that retweet a specific post'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getBulkPosts' or 'getSinglePost' in terms of retweet-specific functionality, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving retweets for analysis, comparing with other post-fetching tools, or prerequisites such as needing a valid post ID. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and similar tools like 'getBulkPosts' or 'getSinglePost'.

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